Oral Answers to Questions

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

University/Industry Links

Albert Owen: What steps she is taking to encourage the strengthening of working relationships between universities and industry.

Mark Tami: How she intends to strengthen working relationships between universities and industry.

Bill Rammell: Relationships between universities and industry are both diverse and valuable. This Government have significantly strengthened those   working relationships. We recently announced £238 million for the third round of the higher education innovation fund; sector skills councils are working with universities to address the higher skill needs of their sectors; we are expanding foundation degrees; and we are continuing investment through research councils, regional development agencies and other programmes. The environment is ripe for greater engagement by industry.

Albert Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. As he said, links between universities and business are vital in research and development, and there are many fine examples throughout the United Kingdom. In my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams), Bangor university is innovative in its Technium organisations and networks. However, the knowledge transfer partnership suffers from the complexity of the funding streams and procedures. What steps can my hon. Friend take to ensure that we simplify those so that we do not discourage the business community in the future?

Bill Rammell: Although this is a devolved matter, I am aware of the partnership to which my hon. Friend refers. Complexity is an issue that we constantly keep under review; I discuss it with my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation, and we seek to simplify the process. However, according to the latest research, substantial progress is being made on initiatives driven by the higher education innovation fund, with £358 million per annum in turnover from spin-off companies and employment for some 13,000 full-time equivalent staff. Knowledge transfer is taking place, but I fully accept that we need to make the process as simple as possible.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend may be aware of the training partnership between Deeside college, the North East Wales institute of higher education and Airbus in north Wales, but is he aware that the partnership trains hundreds of employees every year to a very high standard? Is not that a model from which industry and Government could learn? May I invite him to visit in the near future?

Bill Rammell: As this is a devolved matter, I am not sure that I can immediately agree to the request for a visit. I am aware of the hugely exciting initiative to which my hon. Friend refers; it is led by the sector skillscouncil, SEMTA, and supports a fast-track apprenticeship foundation degree programme. What I find particularly attractive about the initiative is the way it seeks to widen and increase participation, moving on to higher level skills and professional jobs in the process—that is one of the key challenges that we face in vocational education. Someone with two A-levels has a 90 per cent. chance of going on to a higher education qualification, but someone with the vocational level three equivalent has only a 50 per cent. chance. Initiatives such as this could help us to crack that problem.

Mark Lancaster: Is the Minister aware that despite the concerns of local business, which view it as a vital ingredient in the success of the city, Milton Keynes still lacks a dedicated undergraduate university? As the Minister, I am sure, agrees with the principle of infrastructure before expansion, and it is the focus of the sustainable communities plan, will he agree to meet local business leaders and listen to their plans, and perhaps support in principle a new university for Milton Keynes?

Bill Rammell: I will be more than happy to meet those business leaders if the hon. Gentleman contacts my office. Although there is not a dedicated university in Milton Keynes, there is of course the Open university, which I believe to be one of the finest achievements of any Labour Government.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work of the university of Wolverhampton and its relationship with RAF Cosford and the defence college of aeronautical engineering? If so, will he have words with his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and ensure that the ongoing defence training review does not move defence training and valuable engineering jobs, skills and training from Shropshire to Wales? May I offer a refuge in Shropshire?

Bill Rammell: I am aware of the initiative to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The fact that the Government have introduced the higher education innovation fund, and sequentially increased the funding from £77 million to £187 million and now to £238 million, has substantially helped such projects. If the hon. Gentleman wants to contact me with his specific concerns about the Ministry of Defence, I will of course talk to colleagues.

Richard Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that getting the world of work and the world of study co-operating effectively is important not only for industry and the further and higher education sectors, but for providing pathways for people either wanting to change career or to retrain after perhaps having lost their job? Does he agree that restrictions such as the 16-hour rule and the 28-day rule all too often get in the way of that, and we need an urgent review of those procedures?

Bill Rammell: My hon. Friend makes some reasonable points from a position of experience, as he dealt effectively with the awful aftermath of the collapse of Rover. The Rover taskforce, where it broke down some of the Chinese walls and barriers between different funding streams and Departments, was successful in overcoming the problems. There are lessons to be learned, and we keep them under review and discussion with colleagues from other Departments.

Boris Johnson: The Minister knows how fervently the Opposition support his work to encourage links between the universities and industry. In that spirit of cross-party consensus on higher education, will he join me in supporting all those engaged in the study and teaching of disciplines that greatly stimulate and develop the mind, but which do not have an immediate vocational application? May I also ask him finally to dissociate himself and his party from the remarks of the former Secretary of State, who deprecated the study of taxpayer-funded history? [Interruption.] Medieval history or any other type of history. Does he agree that those remarks were not only sad and surprising from a man who was notionally in charge of higher education, but economically illiterate?

Bill Rammell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new duties and look forward to exchanges and debates with him.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman misquotes what the former Secretary of State said about history. Although I welcome the hon. Gentleman's conversion to a commitment to such subjects, the difference between the Conservatives and Labour in government is that we have substantively increased funding to universities, whereas the previous Conservative Government cut it.

Ashok Kumar: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent work that the north-east process industry cluster has developed between universities and industry, especially in the pharmaceutical and chemical industries? I am sure that we can expect support from our Government to ensure that that work continues. In the same spirit as my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), I invite my hon. Friend the Minister to Teesside to see the excellent work that the cluster is doing.

Bill Rammell: Before I send my diary manager through the roof, I would be happy to consider such a visit if my hon. Friend will contact me with the details.
	I am aware of the initiative to which my hon. Friend referred; in fact, I cited it in a speech last night. It is an exciting initiative that brings together the chemical and pharmaceutical industries. It tackles the downturn in other industries and significantly increases the high-level skills base. I applaud what the partners are doing in that area.

Classroom Behaviour

Adrian Bailey: What steps she is taking to assist teachers in managing disruptive classroom behaviour.

Mark Hendrick: What representations she has received from teachers' unions on the development of policy on preventing disruptive behaviour in the classroom.

Ruth Kelly: We have consulted a range of teacher representatives, including trade unions, on how to tackle poor behaviour in schools. We shall shortly be introducing statutory powers for teachers and other school staff to discipline pupils, as well as a range of other measures.

Adrian Bailey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The Ofsted report shows an improvement in pupil behaviour over the past year, which is reflected in the drop in the number of exclusions in my local authority of Sandwell. Does she agree that more needs to be done and that essential to the campaign to improve pupil behaviour is parental support? Will she outline the steps that the Department is taking to engage parents further in that process?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the involvement of parents and how important it is for improving not only children's behaviour, but their attainment in school. When we asked a group of head teachers—the Steer group—to look at those issues, they came up with a number of recommendations specifically about how parents might better be involved in the process: for example, that parenting contracts should be made available earlier, before a pupil is excluded from school; that parents should be responsible for supervising excluded pupils during the first five days of an exclusion; and that parents should attend a mandatory reintegration interview following their child's suspension from school. Those are all concrete, useful proposals that we shall be able to take forward in the forthcoming education Bill and they will make a difference to the standard of behaviour in schools and, I hope, to the attainment of those pupils.

Mark Hendrick: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are four excellence clusters in Lancashire. The schools in those clusters have received about £6 million since 2004, and £3 million just in this financial year alone. Is she also aware that one of those schools has had a 77 per cent. reduction in permanent exclusions since this process started?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the good work that is being done by head teachers, staff and schools in tackling disruptive behaviour in the classroom. That is why we are investing in giving schools the resources that they need to make the improvement sustainable. Of course, we will also take other measures, not just the behaviour improvement programme funding, that teachers will be able to use to improve pupil behaviour further. In particular, it is important that teachers have a clear right to be able to discipline pupils. That was first proposed in the late 1980s—I believe that it was rejected by the Administration at that time—but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will take that proposal forward.

Nigel Dodds: In supporting absolutely what has been said about parental involvement in tackling this problem, can the Secretary of State give a commitment that the necessary resources will be given to help to involve parents in tackling the problem in the home environment?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a very important point: how can parents best be involved in their children's education? As I said earlier, that will make a difference not just to the behaviour of those children, but to how well they do at school. One of the proposals made by the group of head teachers that came together under Sir Alan Steer was that dedicated home-school liaison officers should work with the most disadvantaged pupils—perhaps those from particularly complex and difficult family backgrounds—to tackle not just the needs of the child, but to look at the whole family context as well, and we should be able to take forward that suggestion in our coming set of proposals.

Tobias Ellwood: One way to combat disruptive behaviour is to ensure that pupils are able to concentrate. Of course, that can be achieved with proper nourishment. Yet I read in the Bournemouth Daily Echo—a fine Dorset paper—that the Government are considering cutting subsidies for school milk—

Mark Tami: Can you eat it?

Tobias Ellwood: Milk? No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching a point.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Secretary of State will know that a lot of what is involved in tackling disruptive behaviour boils down to funds and helping schools. How can she justify giving rural local education authorities, such as that in Shropshire, just half of what London gets per pupil?

Ruth Kelly: I am glad that, in the recent ditch-a-policy-a-day campaign, the Conservative party has now decided to back us on investment in schools, as well as on reform. Of course, that investment is necessary, and it has been taking place in every school in the country. On average, revenue funding per pupil has increased by more than £1,000 under this Government, and we intend to take that programme of investment further forward.

Nick Gibb: The Secretary of State will be aware that one of the causes of disruption in the classroom is that some children are bored by a lack of challenge and that others are frustrated by lessons that are too difficult. That is why Sir Alan Steer's report links the appropriateness of the curriculum to standards of behaviour. Does she accept, therefore, that to reduce disruption in the classroom it is vital that children are taught to the right level of their ability—that academic children are challenged and that the less able are given time and attention? If she accepts that, what measures is she taking to raise the level of setting in secondary schools from its current position, where just 40 per cent. of lessons are set, including just 51 per cent. of lessons in English?

Ruth Kelly: I am glad that consensus is breaking out right across the House on these issues and that the Conservative party has finally realised that every school ought to have a policy to cater not just for the least able, but for the most talented children in the school. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there has been a huge increase in setting under this Government. I would have hoped that he would stand up and welcome that. For example, in 1996–97, only 28 per cent. of classes were set. That figure rose to 36 per cent. in 2003–04. In particular, in year 7, when children arrive at secondary school, there has been a very steep increase.
	I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the guidance that we are giving schools to increase setting. I hope that he also welcomes the fact that we are now directing more resources to schools so that, if necessary, they can provide individual support to help children to catch up if they have not reached the required standard at 11, and individual or small group support for the brightest children in the subjects in which they are strong.

Young People (Consultation)

Edward Miliband: What steps the Department is taking to give young people more choice in and influence over the activities and facilities made available to them.

Maria Eagle: The "Youth Matters" Green Paper outlined plans to put resources directly into the hands of young people and for young people to have more say in the way that resources were spent to give them more choice and influence over provision. Extra resources made available through the pre-Budget report will provide a total of £115 million in the two financial years from April for the youth opportunity and youth capital funds. The youth opportunity card, which will be piloted from April, will give funding directly to young people. That will encourage activity providers to be more responsive in delivering what young people want.

Edward Miliband: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. Does she agree that we are now able to give young people more of a say in youth provision because we have started to invest in that area? For many decades, that was not done. Does she also agree that we will never meet young people's aspirations if we adopt the policy proposed by some in this House that public spending overall should grow more slowly than the economy grows?

Maria Eagle: I agree that investment is needed. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made his position clear by greatly increasing the money available to be spent on the youth opportunity and the youth capital funds. In the consultation, 68 per cent. of the 19,000 young people who replied said that they wanted to help in local decision making on how councils spend money on the provision of activities for young people. We have a big opportunity. I hope that other parties will put their money where their mouth is and support the policy fully, and that means funding it as well.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that parents and pupils will have no real choice in the facilities they use when the Government have a policy of allowing paedophiles to be put in charge of them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister will not answer.

Mary Creagh: Will the Minister elaborate on the new fund that she mentioned, specifically in relation to the challenges faced by young people in rural areas? Will she join me in congratulating Denby Dale parish council in my constituency, which has been listening to young people and has just started work on a new skate park in the village of Skelmanthorpe—a small village of only 6,000 people?

Maria Eagle: I am happy to congratulate that local authority on its efforts. The resources that the Chancellor has provided for the two years in which we are putting the funds in place will enable us, on average, to give each local authority up to £500,000 to develop such initiatives. That is real money and local young people will have a real say in deciding how it is spent.

Trust Schools

David Chaytor: If she will make a statement on trust schools.

Ruth Kelly: Acquiring a trust allows schools to do more to raise standards using external support and collaboration between willing partners, the strong governance arrangements that we have seen working in voluntary-aided schools, and the flexibilities that almost 900 foundation schools have used to manage their assets and resources. Trust schools are local authority-maintained schools, which means that they operate within the same funding and capital system and exactly the same code of fair admissions as other schools do now.

David Chaytor: Of course, my question would have been Question 7 had the Conservatives not withdrawn their interesting question on grammar schools.
	If the only technical difference between trust schools and other categories of school is that the trust has the capacity to have a majority on the governing body, what specific powers will be available to trust schools that are not already available to academies, foundation schools or even bog-standard specialist schools?

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep and sustained interest in these issues as a member of the Select Committee on Education and Skills, so he will know that we are building on best practice, allowing all schools working together to avail themselves of existing flexibilities that, for example, are available to voluntary-aided schools. He knows that the trust school is legally a foundation school with a foundation. There are examples of historical foundations that run a number of schools. I should like to make it possible for schools to come together with an external partner—75 per cent. schools currently work with an external partner—and ask whether they can form a more permanent relationship with them. For example, if a group of schools comes to together, and those schools want to offer a broader, more varied vocational curriculum to pupils—it will never be the case that one school will be able to offer the full set of vocational opportunities—and they know that a local business foundation, the local university and others in the community can help them to establish that new curriculum, it will be a significant additional freedom for those schools to bind in those external partners more permanently.

Paul Rowen: How many of the failing secondary schools does the Secretary of State envisage becoming trust schools? If they do not become trust schools, what measures does she propose to introduce to ensure that all pupils receive the education that they deserve?

Ruth Kelly: The first thing that we need to do is crack down on failing schools. In the past eight years, we have halved the number of failing schools. I am determined to raise the bar even higher with the new inspection regime and the changes to the league tables—in future, schools must include attainment in English and maths as well as other GCSE subjects. I am determined, too, to give local authorities the powers that they need to intervene earlier and quicker to turn around schools before they start to fail. I would like to give local authorities an additional tool for tackling failure—the ability for it to become a trust school. I hope that local authorities regard that as a vital weapon in their armoury to tackle failure.

Helen Jones: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more specific about the people whom she envisages as being able to run trust schools? She has previously said in a parliamentary answer that people barred from becoming directors would not be able to run a trust. Does that mean, however, that firms such as McDonald's, for instance, would technically be able to run trusts?

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend has a sustained interest in this issue. She will be interested to learn that we published a prospectus for trust schools just last week, which sets out not just the opportunities available to trust schools but the specific safeguards that we intend to put in place in legislation if the trust—and the school must want the trust to do this—appoints the majority of governors. Those safeguards are pretty tough, and they include not just the safeguards that she set out but additional protections so that the trust can be removed or, indeed, cannot be set up if the local authority thinks that there will be some detriment to standards.

David Willetts: I welcome this first opportunity to question the Secretary of State. Whatever our differences on other matters today, I can assure her and the Government of our support if they do indeed pursue serious education reform. Will she clear up a crucial confusion? When the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) asked her in a Select Committee hearing last month if trust schools would be independent like academies, she said:
	"No . . . Trust schools are local authority maintained schools."
	In October, however, the Prime Minister said that they would be "independent, self-governing state schools" with "Academy-style freedoms". Which is it to be? Will the Secretary of State sort out this confusion once and for all by simply repeating the Prime Minister's words? If I may say so, today is a good day for her to stick very close to the Prime Minister. If she does so, I hope that she will assure us that trust schools will be independent, self-governing and, indeed, have academy-style freedoms.

Ruth Kelly: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post, and I am glad to see that he has returned to his portfolio as shadow Secretary of State for Education. No doubt, he enjoyed it so much the first time that he wanted to come back for a second go. The answer to his question is that trust schools are local authority-maintained schools, just as foundation schools are now. They will have the additional freedoms of voluntary aided schools. For example, they can appoint the majority of governors. If they apply for the power to innovate—any school can do so—they will have the sort of freedoms currently available to academies.
	The hon. Gentleman says there is a contradiction in speaking of schools as independent state schools. I refer him to our party's manifesto, if he can bring himself to read it. There, we referred to independent specialist schools. Those are local authority schools within the state system, as everyone recognises. Trust schools are also local authority-maintained schools, with additional freedoms.

Jeff Ennis: Can my right hon. Friend say a little more about the incentives there will be for trust schools to collaborate more with each other? Does she agree that the trust school model lends itself more to an urban setting than to a rural setting?

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend has been following the debate closely. It is when schools want to collaborate on a deeper, more sustainable basis that they will consider the option of developing a mutual or common trust between them. A rural school might need that ability to collaborate and establish a permanent relationship even more than an urban school. For example, if a rural school wanted to develop its vocational curriculum—an example that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) a moment ago—it would be an opportunity for that school to embed those relationships with other schools further away. But if, for example, a rural school had difficulty tying in local services for the "Every Child Matters" agenda—a technical phrase meaning that the voluntary sector and the various agencies, including health, are bound into the future of that school—that again might be a reason why a rural school in particular wanted to set up a trust. These opportunities are available to schools. We are not forcing schools to go down the route of setting up a trust, but that is a possibility they might consider.

Edward Davey: In her reply to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) about who can run trust schools, the Minister spoke about safeguards. I know that she is having a few problems with lists at present, but I remind her that she promised to produce a new list—a list of which organisations and individuals would be suitable and appropriate to operate trust schools. When will she publish that list? Can she confirm that she has not ruled out fast-food chains like McDonald's and Burger King from running trust schools? Can she say anything about any criteria that she has in mind for judging whether a body is suitable to run a school?

Ruth Kelly: The best safeguard for trusts is to trust the schools and the parents. If a trust is set up as a charitable foundation, has educational objectives according to charity law, and can prove and show that school and the parents that it will be able to raise standards in that school or perhaps link that school to other schools to raise standards, parents and schools should have that choice, subject to the appropriate safeguards. Although there has been huge progress over the past eight years, one in four secondary schools are still underperforming, and we have a duty as a Government to take the action that is needed to increase opportunities for every child in our secondary school system.

Child Care

Meg Hillier: What plans she has to provide more affordable child care places.

Beverley Hughes: Since 1997, as a result of the Government's policies there has been a net increase in child care places nationally of some 90 per cent. In December 2004, we published the 10-year child care strategy to ensure a sustained supply of child care places to give parents choice, flexibility, quality, availability and affordability. The Childcare Bill before the House will give statutory force to those commitments by placing local authorities under a duty to ensure as far as possible sufficient child care, with particular regard to working parents on low incomes.

Meg Hillier: It is welcome news that money is being invested in young people. My right hon. Friend will be aware, however, of the challenges in London. In my constituency, where there is a higher than average population under the age of 16, it particularly bites. Low wages and high premises costs make the cost of child care especially high. Even with Government support, it is difficult for many parents to access child care. Will my right hon. Friend visit Sure Start projects in my area to hear from parents about the difficulties, so that we can move together further to tackle access to child care for parents on low incomes in London?

Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for her interest in the subject, to which she pays close attention in her constituency. I have talked to parents and Sure Start project providers in London and realise that affordability is an issue in some London boroughs, although child care places in Hackney have increased by 406 per cent. The London Development Agency and my Department are jointly funding pilot schemes to establish the best way to subsidise the additional costs in London that result in higher charges for parents. I am pleased to say that Hackney is among the 26 London boroughs participating in the first round of pilots, which will run until 2008, and I expect all other eligible London boroughs to be included in the next round.

John Bercow: Given that the duty on local authorities in the Childcare Bill to provide child care places does not specify that any of those places must be free and that non-working parents are by definition ineligible for the working tax credit, what plans does the Minister have to ensure that non-working parents can obtain ready access to free child care, so that they can attend job interviews or undertake training?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman takes a welcome interest in the subject. The duty on local authorities in the Bill is not directly to provide child care, but to sustain a market in their area. It will include not only working parents, but those who are in education or training and who are seeking jobs, so the duty on local authorities and the definition of sufficiency will encompass non-working parents. In addition, substantial resources—£2.7 billion, which does not include the additional resources for the free education offer for three and four-year-olds—have been allocated to local authorities for the period from 2006 to 2008 as part of the general Sure Start grant. Local authorities will be able to make their own strategic decisions on subsidies to non-working parents who fall outside the category of education and training.

Barry Sheerman: My right hon. Friend knows that the Education and Skills Committee takes a great interest in early years, into which it has conducted a major inquiry. It welcomed the expansion in child care places, but what has been done about increasing the pay and qualifications of the people who look after our precious children?

Beverley Hughes: In addition to increasing the supply of child care places, the Government consider it important to maintain and increase provision across the board, because we know that high quality provision makes the difference for young children. The initial qualifications held by the work force and the opportunities for continuing professional development are critical, which is why we have set up the Children's Workforce Development Council and are putting £250 million into the transformation fund over the next two years to enable private sector providers in particular to employ more highly trained people. Our ambition is to see a graduate leader in all day care and child care centres by 2015 and to train up people at lower levels. The issue is very important for us.

Hywel Williams: The Minister knows that the particular difficulties in providing child care places in rural areas has created a shortage. What plans do the Government have to address that particular rural economic disadvantage?

Beverley Hughes: The issue is important, which is why we have given local authorities the strategic lead. As I have said, they will not directly provide services, but they will sustain a market in relation to local conditions. Under that duty, they must assess the market with providers and parents and work out the best way to ensure the supply of places given local circumstances such as rurality, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. There is great potential for providers to collaborate in the development of networks of child minders. As a result of the duty, local authorities will be able to do a great deal more in rural areas.

Joan Humble: As my right hon. Friend develops more child care places, will she especially consider the needs of families with disabled children? I am sure she knows that they often pay a premium for their places, which causes them genuine financial hardship. They, too, need affordable child care on an equal basis with other families.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I share her concern about that. That is why the duties on local authorities include having especial regard not only to working parents on low incomes, whom I mentioned earlier, but families with disabled children. I am happy to say that there are some welcome recent innovations, especially among child minders who specialise in the care of disabled children and develop relationships with families and expertise in different sorts of disabilities. Local authorities will want to build on that type of development.

Maria Miller: Sure Start remains a core component of the Minister's child care plans. Does she share my concern that it fails some of the children who are most in need? The Opposition support the principles of Sure Start but, as the Minister knows, Government research shows that, in practice, the adverse effects for some children could be greater than the beneficial effects for others. Surely simply changing practice guidelines does not measure up to the sort of reform that Sure Start needs today.

Beverley Hughes: I am glad that the Conservative party has at least taken one step and said publicly that it supports the principle of Sure Start because before the general election, which is not that long ago, Conservative Members claimed that they would dismantle it and spend the money on something else. We have therefore progressed slightly. However, Conservative Members have yet to make it clear that they would continue that important programme, which is vital for disadvantaged children, to the same extent as the Government.
	If the hon. Lady has considered the evaluation, she knows that the issue is whether enough was done in some—not all—programmes to reach genuinely disadvantaged people and those who do not easily access public services. We have taken that finding on board and all the children's centres that we roll out now, wherever they are sited and whether the area is disadvantaged or not, will have to ensure that they have strong outreach services so that lone parents and those who are very disadvantaged, on very low incomes and often suspicious of publicly provided services are brought into contact with them and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister should drop a note to the hon. Lady.

Science Research Funding

Linda Gilroy: What recent assessment she has made of funding for science research in higher education in the south-west of England.

Bill Rammell: The Department's spending on research and knowledge transfer in English universities is rising by £383 million between 2004–05 and 2007–08. In the current year, universities in the south-west are receiving £77.3 million in recurrent research funding, which is up from £50 million in 2002. In addition, they have received £83 million in capital funding from the science research investment fund since 2002.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and the welcome increase in funding. However, he knows about the concerns that Plymouth university and others have expressed about the change in the formula that is used to allocate the money from the higher education innovation fund and the potential impact on knowledge partnerships and small and medium-sized enterprises. Will my hon. Friend meet me and some people from Plymouth university who have been working on those important matters to discuss a way forward?

Bill Rammell: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues. However, I reassure her that the higher education innovation fund—HEIF—has not been cut. It has increased from £77 million to £187 million and now to £238 million. The allocation method has changed in that we have moved from an exclusively competitive bidding round in response to concerns from universities. Now the method is 75 per cent. formula driven with 25 per cent. based on competitive bidding. I do not believe that the position is dire for Plymouth university. Under HEIF 2, it received £2.5 million and under HEIF 3, it received £1.9 million. However, that takes no account of the fact that it is open to Plymouth university to bid for the £54 million that is available from competitive bidding and has yet to be allocated.

Higher Education

David Jones: If she will make a statement on measures to promote fair access to higher education.

Bill Rammell: Fair access to higher education is one of the Government's top priorities. That is why, from 2006, no full-time student in England will have to pay fees up front, nor will they repay anything until they are in work and earning more than £15,000 a year. It is also why we are restoring student grants. Alongside this, we have the Aimhigher programme, which seeks to raise aspiration and attainment levels among those currently under-represented in higher education.

David Jones: Does the Minister agree that the sole criterion for admission to university should be academic ability? Does he also agree with the chairman of the Headmasters and Headmistresses Conference that the best method of testing academic ability is the use of the A-level, and that it is essential that we have an A-level that we can trust? If necessary, will he speak to the heads of private and state schools to ascertain whether A-levels should be made harder?

Bill Rammell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that he is up to speed with what is happening with A-levels. We are seeking to make them tougher through the requirement to complete an extended project and other measures. In response to the views—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I may interrupt the Minister, it is becoming quite common for mobile telephones and other devices to go off in the Chamber. Hon. Members should be careful to switch those devices off before they come into the House.

Bill Rammell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	In response to the Heads of Public Schools Association, I would say that I am certainly not against any young person with ability from an independent school going to university, and academic excellence should be the criterion. However, I want that opportunity for every child in every kind of school in every part of the country. Young people from state schools are under-represented in higher education. We need to tackle that issue, and the Government are right to focus on it.

David Taylor: The Minister has just mentioned under-representation. Is he aware that the 7 per cent. of young people in this country who are force-fed education in private schools have hugely disproportionate access to the Russell group universities? What does he intend to do to remedy that situation, particularly in relation touniversities such as the London School of Economics, which takes a high proportion of privately educated students as well as taking students from foreign countries, because of the extra money that those students bring in, and for whom the level of qualification required is often lower than that required of our own students?

Bill Rammell: If my hon. Friend looks at the evidence from the past five or six years, he will see that the proportion of young people from state schools going to all classifications of universities has increased. I certainly want that trend to continue, which is why we are introducing a better and fairer student financial system. We are also consulting on a fairer admissions system, and if we can achieve consensus on that, we shallmove towards a post-qualification system. Undoubtedly, however, institutions need to work with us to ensure that the admissions system is as fair as possible. From all the discussions that I have with university institutions, I am confident that that is also what they want to do.

Tim Boswell: Will the Minister confirm that two important principles are involved? The first is the entirely desirable wish to encourage people from either socially disadvantaged or educationally unconventional backgrounds to go into higher education institutions. The second is the right of those institutions to select their students on the basis of their academic suitability. If I am ready to concede the first principle to the Minister, will he in return concede to me the principle that the academic freedom of choice of those institutions is paramount and will not be tampered with by Ministers?

Bill Rammell: The Government most certainly do not tamper with university admissions—[Interruption.] The Government do not do that. Universities are autonomous. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who used to hold the post that I now hold, that academic excellence and success in qualifications are the key criteria. However, the problem for the country is that too many suitably qualified young people do not have the aspiration or the opportunity to go on to higher education. That should be the key issue that makes us all determined to do an awful lot better.

Women Apprentices

Julie Morgan: What plans she has to increase the number of women apprentices in non-traditional occupations.

Phil Hope: Forty per cent. of apprentices are female, but we recognise that there are some major imbalances in different occupations. One of the ways in which we are addressing that is by working with the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Learning and Skills Council and other sector bodies to improve information, broaden choice and explore more flexible apprenticeship learning opportunities. Those include new entry arrangements into apprenticeships to help young people develop skills before they find an employer. We are also trialling apprenticeships for more mature workers.

Julie Morgan: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am sure that he would agree that this skill segregation at the apprentice stage leads to the unacceptable pay gap later in life. What could the Government do, for example, to encourage older women, rather than just school leavers, into apprenticeships such as electronics or plumbing, as such women could then be role models for younger women?

Phil Hope: My hon. Friend has made an important suggestion. I agree that we must do more to tackle stereotyping at work and in training, and I look forward to the Women and Work Commission report, which is to be published soon. We are evaluating now how successful trials of adult entry into apprenticeships are in addressing under-representation of men and women in various shortage sectors. We are also preparing some detailed responses to each of the recommendations of the EOC investigation into occupational segregation in work and training. One example that I can quote to her is of a young woman, Michelle Jones, who was last year's apprentice of the year, and technician of the year, at BAE Systems.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

The Solicitor-General was asked—

Criminal Proceedings (Media Reports)

Stephen McCabe: What factors the Law Officers take into consideration in assessing whether media reports of criminal proceedings constitute contempt.

Mike O'Brien: Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, a strict liability contempt is committed where a media report creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in proceedings will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. The Law Officers are guided by case law when deciding what factors to take into consideration when assessing whether reports constitute contempt, such as the passage of time between publication and trial, the effect reporting had on the trial and the ability of a trial judge to ensure a fair trial despite the reporting.

Stephen McCabe: I have no desire to muzzle the press, but surely when a case is actually before the courts members of the media and Members of the House have a responsibility to exercise some restraint.

Mike O'Brien: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The right to a free press is an enormously important part of our democracy, but so is the right to a fair trial, and those rights need to be balanced. Freedom brings with it responsibilities, one of which is to abstain from saying things that might prejudice or impede a fair trial. It is therefore right that, when proceedings are pending, we should exercise restraint. The position is different after a trial, when people can comment with greater freedom.

Andrew Turner: Where the courts have ordered that the place of residence of a defendant or of someone who has been found guilty of a crime should not be made known, would it constitute a breach of that order to make it known where that person is not resident?

Mike O'Brien: I hesitate to give general legal advice from the Dispatch Box—I suspect that any lawyer would be cautious. It would depend on the circumstances, to use a good lawyerly phrase. Clearly, however, it is a matter of some seriousness if a court order is breached, and it will be for the judge in the case to take a view as to whether that constitutes something on which the court wishes to act.

Dominic Grieve: The Solicitor-General will be aware that as well as the reporting of court proceedings and of material that might be in contempt of court, another issue that is a growing cause for concern is the reporting of matters that might prejudice a trial between the time of a person's arrest and the time that charging takes place. The hon. and learned Gentleman might well agree that the press previously exercised a considerable degree of self-restraint in that respect but no longer seem to do so. What steps are being taken by the Attorney-General's Department and the Home Office to consider that problem and to see whether legislation might be necessary?

Mike O'Brien: When the matter is serious charging can usually take place fairly quickly, shortly after arrest and some questioning, but there are cases in which an arrest is made, the person is bailed for a period and the charge takes place after that. During that process, there is more freedom for the press. We are watching the position closely, and we are keen to ensure general press freedom, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there must be a balance between the right to freedom of the press and the right to a fair trial, and the press must be sure to act properly. It has its freedom, but it must also recognise the right to a fair trial.

Discontinued Prosecutions

Nigel Dodds: In how many cases a prosecution has been discontinued in the public interest in the last 12 months.

Mike O'Brien: Provisional figures show that during 2005, 25,400 cases were discontinued in the public interest in England and Wales—just over 2 per cent. of the total number of completed cases. The only figures for Northern Ireland relate to Fermanagh and Tyrone and Greater Belfast. Between 1 April and 30 September 2005, 164 cases were discontinued in the public interest—again, just over 2 per cent. of the total.

Nigel Dodds: The Solicitor-General will know that the most high-profile case which has caused the most controversy in the House recently is the dropping of charges in the public interest against the IRA members involved in the Stormont spy ring. Is it not time for more information to be put in the public domain in the public interest, so that people have a clearer understanding of the bizarre events surrounding the dropping of those charges? In particular, can the Solicitor-General go further than the Attorney-General did in his letter to the leader of my party on 22 December, and tell us which Ministers—including the Prime Minister—were consulted before the decision was made to drop the charges?

Mike O'Brien: The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland were certainly consulted.
	The Shawcross procedure was initiated back in 1951 by Sir Hartley Shawcross, who set out the rules very clearly. In the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, it took place in January. The decision relating to the decision to discontinue the prosecution was made in December as a result of information received from the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In that instance there was no Shawcross procedure and no consultation of other Ministers, apart from a discussion between the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland and the Attorney-General following information received from the Chief Constable in November. The Shawcross consultation took place earlier in the year on a different matter. A separate issue arose in November and December, as a result of which the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland took the view, after consultation with the Attorney-General, that the prosecution should be discontinued.

Simon Hughes: Like many other cases, the Northern Ireland case gives the public great cause for concern, because they do not understand why a prosecution that they expected to take place did not go ahead. Will the Solicitor-General consider the adoption of a much better procedure, allowing the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service to be regularly accountable to the public—to explain why they make such decisions, to answer questions, and to increase the credibility of their decisions as a result?

Mike O'Brien: The Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland gave careful consideration to the information that he received from the Chief Constable of Northern Ireland in November 2005. I think that the DPP acted quite properly. He did consult the Attorney-General, but no other Minister was involved in the December decision to discontinue the prosecution.
	Having regard to his duties as prosecutor, the DPP weighed the relevant factors—including the Human Rights Act 1998—in deciding that it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution. It is not open to the DPP or to me to make public the reasoning behind that decision. To do so would be liable to give rise to the very damage that the decision to stop the prosecution was intended to avoid. The hon. Gentleman seems to want the information to be in the public arena, but the purpose of the decision was to stop certain information from entering the public arena.

Treasury Solicitor's Department

Peter Bone: How many people were employed in the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the years ending 31 December 2003, 2004 and 2005; and what the cost of the Department was in each year.

Mike O'Brien: The full-time equivalent number of staff employed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department for the calendar year 2003 was 797 and the Department's overall cost was £80 million. For 2004, there were 848 staff and an overall cost of £79.6 million. For 2005, there were 861 staff and an estimated overall cost of £80.2 million.

Peter Bone: The House will be surprised at the number of people employed and the huge cost. Has the Solicitor-General examined whether some of that work could be carried out by the private sector, and what savings could be made?

Mike O'Brien: The 8 per cent. rise in staff matches increased productivity, which is 18 per cent. in chargeable hours. On cost-effectiveness, overall costs are up only 0.25 per cent.—less than the rate of inflation. There is extra work to do, and it is being done with only a small increase in the number of staff. If the Government put the work out to, say, City firms, which do much of such work, their charging rate would bemuch higher than the Treasury Solicitor's Department's. TSol charges about £134 per hour, but private City law firms would charge at least double that; frankly, if I were in a City firm, I would charge well over double that figure. In other words, we get value for money from Treasury solicitors.

Non-stranger Rape

Tom Clarke: What further steps are being taken to improve the conviction rate in prosecutions for non-stranger rape.

Mike O'Brien: Convictions in non-stranger rape cases are low because there are no independent witnesses and, frequently, no forensic evidence. Since July, I have been working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to develop a package of measures that will enhance the effectiveness of rape prosecutions and improve the courtroom treatment of victims. That will improve conviction rates, and I hope to make an announcement shortly.

Tom Clarke: Does the Solicitor-General agree that because rape victims are immensely traumatised—all the more so when a non-stranger, such as a close friend or an acquaintance, is involved—there is often a delay in reporting? Such delay has often been used by the defence to discredit victims. This issue is of great concern to many people and I would welcome the Solicitor-General's observations on it.

Mike O'Brien: It is undoubtedly the case that some victims delay making a complaint owing to trauma, and defence lawyers will cross-examine victims on this point, playing on society's erroneous assumption that a real victim would come forward immediately, which is not always the case. I therefore propose that experts be allowed to provide generic evidence of rape's psychological impact on victims. That will assist juries by addressing some of the myths that persist about rape, which were highlighted in a recent poll conducted by Amnesty International. I believe that that will make a substantial difference to conviction rates.

Business of the House

Theresa May: May I ask the Leader of the House to give the House the business for the following week?

Geoff Hoon: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 16 January—Remaining stages of the Equality Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 17 January—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate relating to the Child Support Agency, followed by a debate relating to civil nuclear power. Both arise on an Opposition motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
	Wednesday 18 January—Remaining stages of the Work and Families Bill.
	Thursday 19 January—Remaining stages of the National Lottery Bill.
	Friday 20 January—Private Members' Bills.
	The provisional business for the following week will be:
	Monday 23 January—Consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
	Tuesday 24 January—Continuation of consideration in Committee of the Government of Wales Bill.
	Wednesday 25 January—Remaining Stages of the Childcare Bill.
	Thursday 26 January—Remaining stages of the Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords], followed by motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee to which the Government have replied. Details will be given in the Official Report.
	Friday 27 January—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 26 January will be:
	Thursday 26 January—A debate on strengthening health services in developing countries.
	[Following is the information: Motion to take note of the outstanding reports of the Public Accounts Committee and the Government replies since last debated on 29 June 2004.]

Theresa May: May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr. Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a happy new year? Judging by the evidence of yesterday, it will be an entertaining new year, courtesy of the Liberal Democrat leadership contenders. [Hon. Members: "Where are they?"] I assume that they must all be out announcing their leadership candidacy. I heard that Liberal Democrat MPs were each signing more than one nomination for leadership candidates, which takes Lib Dem indecision to new heights.
	I am sure that the Leader of the House was as concerned as I was to hear that Ministers have allowed people on the register of sex offenders to be employed to teach children in our schools. Was he as outraged as I was to hear that despite—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A point of order was raised last night by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Because of that point of order, I requested that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills make a statement, which will follow this statement, so I ask the right hon. Lady to leave that matter and move on to other subjects. That is not something for the Leader of the House; the appropriate Secretary of State will make a statement.

Theresa May: I am grateful for your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. I would, however, wish to ask a number of questions about aspects of the issue that are not relevant to the Department for Education and Skills—

Mr. Speaker: No, the right hon. Lady will not do that. An appropriate Minister will make a statement to the House, and I will not allow this now. We are talking about the business for next week.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In that case, I shall return to future business and suggest to the Leader of the House that as the Government have now dropped their Northern Ireland legislation from the business for two weeks' time, that gives them an opportunity to introduce legislation covering the results of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry into the Soham murders. Will the Government change the business of the House to ensure that such legislation can be brought forward?
	There are a number of issues relating to child protection, not least of which are some of the points raised during the passage of the Children Act 2004. Will the Leader of the House ensure that in due course we can have a wide-ranging debate on child protection as it relates to all Government Departments?
	There are indications in the press that the Prime Minister intends to reshuffle his Cabinet. I cannot imagine why he might feel that some Secretaries of State are not appropriate for their jobs—although I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills has been given his full support. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if a reshuffle takes place, the Prime Minister will fill the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which has remained vacant for many months?
	Given all that has happened with Government statistics, and the variability of the statistics produced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am sure that hon. Members were concerned to read yesterday that the Bank of England is apparently so concerned about the uncertainty of Government statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics that it has had to introduce a unit to provide its own figures, so that it can have some decent figures on which to operate, as opposed to those produced by the ONS. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore give the House a debate in Government time on the whole question of Government statistics, and the reliability of the figures on which Government decisions are based?
	Finally, bearing in mind the fact that over the Christmas recess it was announced that the health authorities in Oxfordshire, under Thames Valley strategic health authority, had had not only to delay heart operations but to cancel operations that people had been expecting—including the very same operation of which the Prime Minister recently had the benefit— will the Leader of the House give us the opportunity for a full and proper debate on the impact of Government policy on the health service? As we heard yesterday from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), 300 health service jobs are to go in Hammersmith. Jobs are also to be lost in Shrewsbury. That is the real impact of Government policies, and it should be debated in Government time.

Geoff Hoon: I thank the right hon. Lady for her good wishes, which are, of course, reciprocated.
	I shall try as best I can to deal with the right hon. Lady's observations about questions arising from the register of sex offenders but am mindful, Mr. Speaker, of your observations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will deal specifically with the question of legislation, and I think it best that she be allowed to make that statement in due course. There will certainly be opportunities in future to debate, as we should, the question of the impact of those issues for all Departments, and I assure the right hon. Lady that the issue will be taken properly and seriously by all of them. Matters will obviously arise in the light of Michael Bichard's report.
	As far as the position of the Duchy of Lancaster is concerned, I am disappointed that the right hon. Lady did not give full credit for the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, who has done a superb job in ensuring that the work of the Duchy is properly carried forward on behalf of the Government and of Parliament. Perhaps I might add to her observation an addendum saying what a magnificent job he has been doing. I am sure that he is keen to continue doing it.
	As far as Government statistics are concerned, we have made clear the importance of having such statistics developed independently and with the confidence of the country. That is why we have made recent changes to the arrangements, and I am sure that all Members will acknowledge that and congratulate the Government on the efforts made.
	The right hon. Lady's final observation about the health authority in Oxfordshire is one of a type of question that has arisen from the Opposition Benches over a number of weeks about deficits. I am sure that she would want me to make it clear that deficits are restricted to a very small number of national health service bodies. Around 4 per cent. of them are responsible for something like 50 per cent. of the deficit. More than 65 per cent. of NHS organisations are in surplus or achieving a balance. I would find it more interesting if Opposition Members came to the House to share my concern about why, when the great majority of health service bodies are able to balance their books or, indeed, to have a surplus, others are failing, despite the considerable extra public funding going into the health service, to achieve that balance. If Opposition Members said that they shared that concern, there would be something on which we could all agree.

Michael Clapham: I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1349 on mesothelioma as a specialism.
	[That this House welcomes the expeditious processing, over the last three years, of asbestos-induced cancer cases by the introduction of a fast track system in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court; recognises that it has dramatically reduced litigation time for both live plaintiffs and surviving relations; is concerned that this progress has been put in jeopardy by the Department of Constitutional Affairs in its consultation paper Focussing Judicial Resources Appropriately—The Right Judge for the Right Case by proposing an end to some civil specialisms including mesothelioma; and calls on the Lord Chancellor to review the proposal and recognise mesothelioma as a specialism.]
	There has been an arrangement in the Queen's bench division of the High Court for a fast-track system for mesothelioma cases, and live cases have been rushed through in a matter of four weeks. That is in jeopardy because the Department for Constitutional Affairs has put out consultation suggesting that certain civil specialisms, including mesothelioma, should be ditched. There is an important wider issue here about asbestos, with something like 4,000 people dying each year as a result of exposure and 2,000 diagnoses every year of mesothelioma cancer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am very sympathetic to the case that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I know constituents who have such terrible difficulties. However, what he is putting forward is more like an Adjournment debate than a question on business. If he applies to me for an Adjournment debate, I will make no guarantees, but he stands a good chance.

Geoff Hoon: My hon. Friend has demonstrated in the past few moments his undoubted expertise in, and extensive knowledge of, this important subject, which affects his constituents and many other people across the country. I am aware of the concerns that he has expressed, and I will certainly draw them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor.

David Heath: I also wish the House a happy new year. This is an exciting time, especially for Conservative Members, who open their newspapers each morning to find out which of their cherished policies has been ditched, and whether it is a Labour or a Liberal Democrat policy that takes its place.
	I take note of what you said earlier, Mr. Speaker, but will the Leader of the House say whether there is any possibility of the Home Secretary bringing forward hissix-monthly statement to the House on the implementation of Sir Michael Bichard's report? Many people have serious questions about the lamentably slow progress being made in a number of areas, not least with the IMPACT computer system. It is now three years late, and a key part of the Government's response.
	May I ask for an urgent debate on defence procurement, given today's Government announcement of the flotation of Qinetiq? There are very important questions to be asked about the original valuation, the sale of a substantial stake in the company to the US group Carlyle, and that group's tax arrangements in Guernsey. Other questions involve the availability of receipts to the Minister of Defence and national security. If we cannot have a debate or a statement in the House, can the issue be referred as a matter of course to the Public Accounts Committee?
	Finally, may we have a debate on the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000? The Prime Minister was reported to have said over Christmas that that legislation was the worst thing that the Government have done. Does the Leader of the House agree with that assessment, or does he believe instead that it was a very important Act that should not be subverted, either by new charging systems or further restrictions on the application of information—or is that something that he cannot tell me?

Geoff Hoon: I have already responded to the House's seasonal good wishes, and I should like to respond in kind to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps rather ungenerously, I suggested before the Christmas recess that his chances of becoming Liberal Democrat leader were in the order of 100:1. Recent events may have shortened those odds, and I am sure that we would all congratulate him if he were to succeed.
	As I have said already, I agree that it is important to give people across the country confidence about the arrangements for dealing with people on the sex offenders register. All Government Departments take that seriously, and I have made it clear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will make a statement in due course about the implications for education. However, it is important to raise these matters in connection with other Departments, including the Home Office. Home Office questions take place on Monday, and they will provide an opportunity to question Ministers. Ministers representing other Departments will be answering questions on subsequent occasions.
	The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on defence procurement, and I can tell him that the previous Secretary of State for Defence established the important tradition that such matters should be debated on a very regular basis. I assure him that there will be opportunities to debate defence procurement in the very near future but, in the meantime, a written ministerial statement today deals with the question of Qinetiq. He should read that statement, and I shall endeavour to answer any questions that he may want to raise with me in due course.
	I am very pleased with reports of the success of the freedom of information legislation, which gives people opportunities to secure information in a way that was not possible previously. I am only slightly disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not congratulate the Government on their efforts in that respect.

Sally Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Road Safety Bill's sanctions against those who cause death by careless driving were watered down by an amendment approved in another place? When the Bill returns to this House, will he ensure that arrangements are made for an amendment to be tabled that would restore the original penalties? That would enable hon. Members to put into effect the deeply held view that the offence is very serious, for which it should be possible to impose a prison sentence on summary conviction.

Geoff Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue, which is regarded with great seriousness, especially—as she has indicated—by Members of this House. Given her knowledge of and expertise in parliamentary procedures, I am sure that she will ensure that an appropriate amendment is tabled at an appropriate stage.

Peter Bottomley: The whole House will welcome the indication that the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on asbestos-linked diseases. We hope that the Lord Chancellor will solve the problem without the need for a debate.
	The report published today by the Health Committee on the proposed reorganisation of primary care trusts is a devastating commentary on a change that will affect everyone in England. I hope that the Government will arrange for a debate, not so that we may be partisan—the issue is too serious for that—but to ensure that we do not lose 18 months on reorganisation and another 18 months on trying to get the benefits, when health needs need to be met now, next year and the year after. Linked to that, will the Leader of the House have a word with the Prime Minister and others who talk—as the Prime Minister did yesterday in columns 281 and 282—about how waiting times have reduced for nearly all the main indicators? They need to include audiology tests in hospital in the main indicators, because the waiting time for a 20-minute hearing test and to get a hearing aid is up to two or three years. It is disgraceful that those times have not been reduced. I do not accuse the Government of being at fault for that, but they have the power to ensure that people have a hearing test within a few months and a hearing aid shortly afterwards.

Geoff Hoon: The hon. Gentleman achieved his ambition of not being partisan on the issues and I will try to respond in kind. What is important about the reorganisation that the Government propose in relation to primary care trusts is that it is bottom up. It reflects the concerns of health professionals in their different areas about the best way to deliver health care in their local communities. That is central to the changes that are being made, which—as I hope he will recognise—are the result of the Government investing significant amounts of extra money in health care. By 2007–08, we will have trebled the amount of money available to the national health service and for that money—as I hope my previous responses have made clear—this Government, like any Government, expect to see real improvement in the standard and quality of care. It is no good investing huge amounts of extra money if it does not produce real changes for the hon. Gentleman's constituents, my constituents and the constituents of every other hon. Member. However, I accept that we still need to make significant improvements in some areas.
	I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the issue of hearing tests. It is important that all waiting lists are reduced and if there is a significant problem in the area that the hon. Gentleman mentions I know that my right hon. Friend will want to address it.

Jim Devine: I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has had the chance to look at early-day motion 1344.
	[That this House welcomes the Scottish Executive's initiative to attract the Commonwealth Games to Scotland in 2014; expresses its support for the bid; and wishes it every success.]
	It is in my name and has been signed by more than 30 of my hon. Friends from all over the United Kingdom. It supports the Scottish Executive's initiative to bring the Commonwealth games to Scotland in 2014. That initiative was supported yesterday by the Prime Minister and I wonder if we can have time for a debate on the practicality of assisting that excellent initiative.

Geoff Hoon: I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising that question. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that the Government would give strong support to that initiative and I am sure that there will be opportunities for my hon. Friend and others to raise the issue in due course. I am convinced that it would be of great benefit not only to Scotland, but to the United Kingdom as a whole.

Michael Penning: I wonder whether the Leader of the House could arrange for an urgent debate on judges' sentencing decisions, especially in the light of a monster being sentenced to 12 years for raping a 10-week-old child.

Geoff Hoon: The Government have devoted much time, not always—if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so—with the support of Opposition Members here or in the other place, to the question of affecting judicial sentences. The Government have had some real difficulty with Opposition Members when we have sought to consider the ways in which judges impose sentences. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it has been a strong tradition that sentencing is a matter peculiarly for judges to determine, and is not a matter for Members of Parliament or indeed Ministers. However, we believe, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares this view, that in some areas sentencing has not always reflected the views of the community. That is why we have taken steps to impose standards and ensure that sentencing reflects the views of the wider community. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in future support the Government's initiatives in that respect.

Geraldine Smith: Tomorrow I shall meet officers from Lancashire county council in an attempt to secure funding for Carnforth Connect, which is an award-winning rural public transport scheme. It is a bus service that links Carnforth station with villages in my constituency, such as Silverdale and other villages to the north, and is very popular with local residents. However, when I ask Lancashire why it is cutting the service, it says that it is not getting enough Government funding and, of course, when I ask the Transport Minister, I am told that Lancashire has received adequate funding. May we have an early debate on rural transport and how we may obtain more funding?

Geoff Hoon: The Government have put a significant amount of extra money into rural transport services— [Interruption.] I hear the usual comments from the Opposition, but I would be happy to answer any questions on the issue from Opposition Members, whose party cut transport support, not least in rural areas. Lancashire and other local authorities must manage the extra funds that they have received. Overall, local authorities have received a 39 per cent. increase in funding since 1997 in real terms. It is a question of local authorities using that money in a way that they judge to be appropriate. I do not accept my hon. Friend's observation that insufficient funding has been provided, but I will ensure that the issue is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

George Young: Before the Christmas recess, I asked the Leader of the House to use his influence to secure for Labour Members a free vote on smoking. I am grateful to him for his success. Can he tell us when the debate will take place? Can he think of other items in the Government's legislative programme that have caused equal distress and can he think of any reason why the convenient solution of a free vote on a manifesto commitment could not usefully be extended?

Geoff Hoon: One of the joys of this job since the privilege of my appointment has been listening to right hon. Members who had distinguished careers in previous Governments advocating courses of action that they would never have advocated when they were Ministers. At least, if they had advocated them they would have been quickly told to think again by their Chief Whip. If they advocated them twice, no doubt their Prime Minister would have given them a reason for not pursuing the matter. It is an intriguing suggestion, but I do not recall the previous Conservative Government ever making such an offer.

Hugh Bayley: It is important for environmental reasons to get more people to use public transport, and that means keeping fares low. However, in many areas there is a virtual monopoly, despite the introduction of competition, with just one company providing almost all the local bus services. Would it be possible to have a debate about local bus services and whether it would be right to give local authorities greater powers to regulate fares?

Geoff Hoon: As I indicated in an answer a few moments ago, the issue of local rural bus services is of crucial importance to people. There has been a significant increase in the number of such services, largely as a result of Government assistance. My hon. Friend is right to recognise that the question of fares is important, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Ben Wallace: Last week, we heard that another prosecution against a member of the armed forces serving in Iraq—a trooper in the 22nd Special Air Service—had been dropped. On all previous occasions, either the Minister for the armed forces or the Solicitor-General came to the House to give us details about why the case had been dropped. Will the Leader of the House press on his colleagues the need to come to the House to answer questions about this case and to give more detail about why such cases are constantly brought, at great expense to the taxpayer, and why they seldom, if ever, result in a prosecution?

Geoff Hoon: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern about the armed forces and possible prosecutions, but if he considers carefully he will realise that it is vital that not elected politicians and Ministers but independent prosecutors judge whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings and, if proceedings are brought, the extent to which they should be continued. I hope that he agrees that it is in the interests of the armed forces that such matters should be decided independently and not be the subject of political comment.

Keith Vaz: May we have a debate or a statement next week on the conclusions of the report by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality about the claim that people are being granted indefinite leave by the immigration and nationality directorate on the basis of their good looks? According to the civil servant concerned, a pretty young Brazilian girl would get a two-year extension but an ugly man would not have an extension. Speaking for the second category, and bearing in mind the backlog of 221,000 cases at IND, is that a change of Government policy and, if not, may we have clarification as soon as possible?

Geoff Hoon: I have had cause to congratulate my hon. Friend on his expertise in this matter on previous occasions. He draws to my attention something with which I was not familiar, but I am sure that the Home Secretary will be interested in his observations and I shall certainly ensure that the question is put before my right hon. Friend.

Nigel Dodds: May we soon have a debate in Government time about pension reform, following the publication of the Turner report? We know that a heated debate is going on within the Government, but it would be useful to have a debate in the House on provision for tomorrow's and today's pensioners, not least so that we can highlight the iniquity of the Government's growing dependence on means-testing to deal with the situation, which is a problem for many pensioners.

Geoff Hoon: I have previously indicated in answer to such questions the importance that the Government attach to pension reform, the Turner report and the need for debate both on the Floor of the House and in the country. I accept the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument and am sure that in due course there will be opportunities to debate those important questions.

Andrew Miller: Members on both sides of the House will welcome the stated aims of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, which was published yesterday. Will my right hon. Friend give the date for Second Reading? From press comment, I take it that it will be in February, but will it be the earlier or latter part of the month?

Geoff Hoon: I was about to congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent work on behalf of the House in chairing the Regulatory Reform Committee, but in the light of his question perhaps I should invite him to recognise the need to reduce the level of detail with regard to some aspects of our legislation. Perhaps he could wait a few short weeks for the detail he requests.

John Hayes: The Leader of the House will have read with sadness and alarm, as I did, the National Audit Office report on school standards, which reveals that 1,557 schools are performing badly, that many of them have performed badly for a considerable time and that some local authorities do not act on that. Indeed, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said yesterday that 1 million children are being failed by our school system. The whole House will share my sadness and alarm. I have no doubt that Members on both sides of the Chamber want to do the best for our children, but the Government must do better. We need an early statement so that we can debate the matter, for we must not fail the next generation.

Geoff Hoon: I have read the relevant report. I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman picked out only those aspects of it that make the Opposition case and failed to read the full report as thoroughly as he should when making such representations. Contrary to what he said, the report reveals that there has been a significant improvement—since 1997, I might add—in reducing the number of failing schools. When the hon. Gentleman makes such observations, I hope that he will give the House the full picture rather than simply select the highlights that make the Opposition's political case.

Safeguarding Children

Ruth Kelly: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a statement about the arrangements for vetting and barring those who work with children. As the House knows, I laid a written ministerial statement at 9.30 yesterday morning and I now want to update Members of the House and answer questions.
	Child protection has been a top priority for the Government, as it was for previous Administrations. Over the past 10 years, the child protection system has improved fundamentally as a result of action first taken by the Conservatives, on which we have built, with cross-party support, in reforming our sex offences laws and setting up the Criminal Records Bureau. Given the scale of change over the last decade, it is helpful to set out briefly the systems currently in place before examining how the issues have arisen and what I propose to do about them.
	List 99 covers those barred for life from working in schools and has been in place for decades. The decision-making process has remained substantially the same, with Ministers in successive Governments required under law to make sensitive child protection judgments on individuals who have come to the attention of the police. Members on both sides of the House will have experience of making such difficult judgments.
	We have significantly tightened List 99 in recent years, with more individuals automatically barred from working with children, and the criteria for inclusion on List 99 being broadened. However, the list does not act in isolation. The previous Government paved the way for the introduction of the sex offenders register, which came into force in 1997. We established the Criminal Records Bureau, which reveals all cautions and convictions to employers where relevant. We have now committed to strengthen the system further through the implementation of a new vetting and barring scheme, as recommended by Sir Michael Bichard. All those measures significantly tightened the protection available to children and ensured that we have some of the toughest sex offender laws in Europe.
	The system currently works in the following way. Where a teacher is convicted of one of a number of specified offences they will automatically be included on List 99, which bars them for life from working in schools. The vast majority of sex offenders are therefore automatically barred from working in schools. For other offences, or where the individual has received a caution, the law currently requires each case to be considered individually and a decision taken by Ministers, based on evidence and advice, even though the individual may have been placed by the police on the sex offenders register.
	In my statement yesterday I said that initial inquiries indicate a small number of such difficult cases. I fully understand the concern that that has caused and I am determined to do something about it. I have, therefore, commissioned as a matter of urgency an exhaustive review of all such cases since the introduction of the sex offenders register in 1997, to confirm the precise number of those individuals, their whereabouts and whether their behaviour has been of concern to the authorities.
	I am sure, however, that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that those cases raise questions about whether the long-standing arrangements need to be changed. I will therefore also review urgently the decision-making process surrounding such cases and the policy implications—in particular, how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources; whether Ministers can be removed from the decision-making process; and how police advice can be more fully considered prior to decisions being made. That review will take place with the greatest possible speed, and I will report to the House as soon as the facts have been established and I have reached my conclusion.
	I reiterate the Government's commitment to implement Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations to tighten the system for vetting and barring those who wish to work with children and vulnerable adults and to introduce legislation in this Session of Parliament. The Bichard system will also entail the vetting in advance of entry into the children's work force, the continuous updating of police information and the ability for parents to check whether tutors, nannies and other individuals whom they employ are barred. It will ensure that cautions and convictions are treated exactly the same.
	The House will remember that legislation to implement the Bichard report was in the Queen's Speech. I can announce today that the Government will be able to introduce that legislation at the end of February. Assuming the full co-operation of the other parties, I am confident that parliamentary time can be found for the Bill in this Session.
	It is vital that public confidence in our child protection system is maintained. That is why I made a written statement to the House at 9.30 yesterday morning and why I am grateful to the House for this opportunity to discuss the matter on the Floor of the House. As Secretary of State, I am accountable for all decisions taken in my Department, and I am determined to keep the House and the public informed. I will make a further statement as soon as the full facts have been established.

David Willetts: I am pleased that the Secretary of State has come to the House to give the statement this morning, but it is extremely disappointing that all she can offer us today is another review and legislation that, in the Government's own words, was "urgent" 18 months ago. Why did she fail to begin by setting out the basic principle that sex offenders should not   be able to work in schools? The case of Mr. Reeve hasseriously undermined public confidence in her Department's ability to meet that basic principle.
	The Secretary of State can restore people's confidence in the system only by answering the following questions, which she failed yet again to answer this morning. First, how many people on the sex offenders register are being allowed to work in schools? I tabled that question on Monday, but I have still not had an answer. That is not an obscure point that requires research in ancient files. We are talking about her Department consciously taking a decision that someone on the sex offenders register should be allowed to work in a school. That is a very sensitive decision indeed. Why can the Government not tell us, even now four days later, in respect of how many people they took that decision?
	Secondly, who took the decision that Mr. Reeve should be allowed to work at Hewett school? The Secretary of State hinted during the week that her junior Minister took the decision. He has replied that he is innocent. How can the Department be in such disarray that it does not even know who takes these decisions?
	Thirdly, one of the main proposals from the Bichard inquiry after the Soham murders was that there should be a single list of sex offenders. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said:
	"We will therefore urgently consider his recommendation that a register be created to bring together all the relevant information held on individuals in a way that is easily accessible."—[Official Report, 22 June 2004; Vol. 422, c. 1186.]
	He said that 18 months ago. The Secretary of State now comes to the House to say that she will legislate, but she has not said that she will legislate to introduce that single list. In fact, last night, Sir Michael Bichard said that there were "real dangers" while different lists continue to have different decision-making processes. However, instead of plugging that loophole, which is at the heart of the scandal that we are debating today, the Secretary of State says that she will review how the closest possible alignment can be secured between List 99, the sex offenders register and other data sources. That is what the Bichard report is all about. That is the loophole that she needs to close.
	Yesterday, in the statement that the Secretary of State gave, she said that, in future, such decisions would be taken by her personally. What are these decisions that she is going to take? The only decision that she could possibly envisage in that statement is that people who are on the sex offenders register should still be allowed to work in schools. So why does she not just say that people on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to teach in schools? Why can she not make it as simple and straightforward as that?
	Today, a year and a half after the publication of the Bichard report, the Secretary of State has announced a review and legislation with no substance or explanation. We hope that her review comes up with useful proposals, but any system ultimately depends on the judgment of the people who run it. No review, no legislation can change that.
	The Secretary of State was no doubt relieved that she got at least tepid support from 10 Downing street yesterday, but the question is not whether she has the confidence of the Prime Minister. The question is whether she has the confidence of millions of parents who will be deeply concerned that she has failed to ensure basic standards for people who work with children in schools. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the confidence of millions of parents in her judgment and in the Department that she runs is fast ebbing away? Nothing that she has said today has restored that confidence.

Ruth Kelly: I am delighted to be able to answer some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but let me make the point that he fundamentally misunderstood the nature of List 99, the current legislation and, indeed, Bichard's recommendations.
	First, List 99 does not give approval for individuals to be employed in schools. Schools must take that decision not just on the basis of checking List 99; they also have a responsibility to check an individual's criminal records if the individual has been out of work. The criminal records check, which we have introduced, will reveal whether an individual has a caution or a conviction. Other data sources are also relevant to those decisions. List 99 does not give automatic approval. What it does, under the framework of the law, is bar certain individuals with specified offences from working with children for ever.
	I have made it absolutely clear to the House and the wider public that there should be a much closer alignment of all those individuals on the sex offenders register and on List 99. That is not how the current law operates, and it is not how the current law has operated for decades, with Ministers under successive Administrations deciding whether to include an individual on List 99.
	I know that people are concerned about how it is possible for an individual on the sex offenders register not to be barred automatically for life from working in schools. That is a complex legal issue. The legislation as it stands and has existed for decades does not allow the Government or Ministers automatically to bar someone who has accepted a caution for an offence, even if they would have been automatically barred if they had been convicted for that offence. If they accept a caution, the law means that we must consider whether to include the person on the list and, indeed, to let that person make representations. In rare cases, despite the individual accepting a caution, the evidence may not be sufficient to show that they present a risk to children. I do not think that that should be the position, which is why I am tightening the legislation to ensure that cautions and convictions are treated identically and why I am seeking to secure the closest possible alignment between the sex offenders register and the new vetting and barring schemes.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to Sir Michael Bichard's recommendations about bringing the lists together, but those recommendations were about bringing the existing lists—List 99, the protection of children list and the protection of vulnerable adults list, which is overseen by the Department of Health—into a list that determines whether an individual should be barred from working with children or with vulnerable adults. Sir Michael was not discussing the sex offenders register. Indeed, there are seven potentially relevant data sources. I think that we as a Government and I as Secretary of State have a responsibility to see whether we can further align those lists, given the importance of complete public confidence in our system. That goes beyond the Bichard recommendations.
	I shall also consider whether it is possible to incorporate police advice more fully. At present when a decision is made, according to the law evidence should be taken from all relevant parties. The police are automatically consulted if they have considered the individual's history, as are scientific experts, medical experts and forensic experts where relevant, and psychological reports are taken. I am considering whether it is possible to give the police an even bigger role in determining the final outcome so that a full risk assessment from the police is incorporated into the decision-making process. I am also considering whether it is possible to remove Ministers entirely from these sensitive child protection cases—something about which many groups that are interested in these sensitive issues are concerned.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of cases and where the individuals in question are working. Initial inquiries in my Department have produced provisional figures suggesting that since 1997 there has been a small number of cases in which individuals on the sex offenders register have not also been included in List 99. The reverse also applies: there are individuals on List 99 who are not on the sex offenders register. However, I think that it would be wrong to give those provisional facts to the House without establishing with absolute certainty the number of cases, where those individuals are working and how we will proceed. I shall come to the House and give a full explanation of the facts and of the whereabouts of those individuals if they are still employed working with children as soon as possible.

Edward Davey: I thank the Secretary of State for that statement. I also thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting the right of this House to hear such an important statement.
	The Secretary of State is right to say that protection of children matters are complex, but was it not the present Government who produced the mess that she now has to review? When did she become aware that the system was so muddled? In how many decisions has she been personally involved? Does she know that number? Did she at any time prior to this week ask for the matter to be looked into? Did any of her Ministers raise the matter with her?
	The right hon. Lady has not answered the questions put by the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts). Will she explain why more than one list is needed? Even if she is right to say that all people on the sex offenders register should not be automatically put on List 99, surely there should be published guidelines and criteria for making such sensitive and difficult decisions.
	Is not there a history of shambolic government in this respect? First, we were promised that the Criminal Records Bureau would provide a one-stop shop, but that failed to deliver when teachers were not checked in time for the start of term. The then Secretary of State bypassed the CRB to deal with the crisis, but never restored to the guidelines for schools the advice to ensure that enhanced checks are carried out on people who apply to work in schools. Then we had the Bichard recommendations, which have still not been fully implemented, as the Secretary of State acknowledges, but a key computer program behind those recommendations is three years behind schedule. We now know that Ministers and officials failed to read across from the Bichard recommendations to the interrelationship between the sex offenders register and List 99. Why has no one in the Department for Education and Skills raised that question during or since the Bichard inquiry?
	For which of the mistakes does the Secretary of State take responsibility? Hon. Members on both sides of the House understand that the rules and guidelines have to be proportionate and that they must protect the rights of individuals—for example, when the offence is not only unproven but unrelated to any risk attached to the work that the individual seeks to do—but surely this episode suggests that the present system and lists are not fit for purpose. The right hon. Lady's review must be broad enough and tough enough to sort that out.

Ruth Kelly: The review will be broad enough and tough enough to sort it out. If further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it. Child protection is the Government's first priority. It is also important to ensure that there is full public confidence in the system. The recent case raises issues relating to whether that confidence exists. That is why I have set out the steps that I am taking, with immediate effect.
	I agree that the existence of so many independent data sources and lists is not satisfactory. I have identified seven relevant sources: some are held by my Department, some by other Government Departments and some by other agencies. Sir Michael Bichard considered some of those lists and made recommendations that we have accepted, and we are determined to legislate at the earliest opportunity to make a reality of his proposals. I believe that last night Sir Michael was saying how impressed he was by departmental officials' work in preparing the Bill and dealing with the complex issues that he set out. We have secured legislative time in this Session and the Bill will be introduced in February. I think that that is what people expect in view of the seriousness of the issues.
	The hon. Gentleman asks in which cases I have been involved. I can tell him that that is not what parents are worried about; they are worried about the issues. I take full responsibility for every decision that has been made in my Department and, as I have said, if any further action is needed, I will not hesitate to take it.

Barry Sheerman: I ask my right hon. Friend to continue to deal with the matter in a calm and measured way. There is nothing worse than making decisions on such issues in panic and hysteria driven by the media, ably assisted by the both main Opposition parties.
	The issue is serious, but we must be careful about starting witch hunts and creating a system that bars not only those who have received a caution or conviction, but those who have been the subject of an allegation. As a constituency MP, I have seen too many lives ruined by false allegations. The balance must be kept right. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ignore the hysteria and carry on the measured manner in which she has started.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. It is extremely important to ensure that we get the facts right. We must base our decisions on the best possible information on the individual cases and base our improved policy on the facts. The protection of children is our paramount consideration. I took the decision to commission a review so that we could look at the facts in an objective, impartial fashion. I shall return to the House as soon as possible to update hon. Members on my conclusions.

Eric Forth: Why did Ministers give the benefit of the doubt to actual or potential offenders rather than to children? Which Ministers made the decisions to which the Secretary of State has referred, and in which decisions was she specifically involved? She has just said that parents are not asking that question. I am asking that question, and I want to know the answer now. Finally, will she immediately drop her disgraceful suggestion that Ministers should no longer be responsible, but that responsibility should be shuffled off on to officials, who cannot defend themselves?

Ruth Kelly: I do not think that, with respect, the right hon. Gentleman has quite understood the point that I made. As Secretary of State, I take full responsibility for all the decisions that have been made in my Department, and I am here to answer questions on that basis. The fact of the matter is that the system for deciding those cases has been the same for decades, with Ministers taking sensitive decisions—[Interruption.]—including, as the right hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position, decisions for which he would once have been responsible. List 99 has been tightened, and the sex offenders register has been introduced. The criteria have been broadened, and we now intend to legislate to bring together the lists that we control. I shall see whether it is possible to align more closely new and existing lists with the sex offenders register and other data sources.

Judy Mallaber: I appreciate the great amount that the Government have done on child protection and sexual offences, as I have been working with the internet adviser to children's charities on the specific question of downloading child pornographic images, which, I understand, was the issue in this case. Before I learned that a statement would be made in the House today, I tabled a question asking the Secretary of State to ensure that people who are on the child protection register because they have been convicted of the crime of downloading images or have accepted a caution and have therefore admitted that they are guilty of downloading images, are automatically excluded from working as teachers. I hope that the review will exclude that category. I understand that this individual was caught in Operation Ore, which netted thousands of UK citizens who downloaded images that are only on the internet because children have been abused by tracking their credit card use. I hope that in the review on which the Secretary of State is embarking that category will definitely be excluded from working as teachers.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for her sustained interest in these issues, which are, indeed, very serious. Her point about treating cautions and convictions in the same way so that an individual who accepts a caution, thereby admitting guilt, is treated in the same way as someone with a conviction is one on which we intend to legislate under the new system. A conviction for a specified offence leads to an automatic barring from working with children, and in future a caution, too, will lead to automatic barring.

Robert Wilson: The Secretary of State has just said that child protection is her first priority. If that is true, why does she appear reluctant to condemn the employment of sex offenders as teachers? Does she agree that it is extremely disturbing that anyone on the sex offenders registers could gain employment as a teacher?

Ruth Kelly: I have just explained to the House why there is a difference between List 99 and the sex offenders register, although I do not think that that is acceptable. I would like to bring the two lists together as closely as possible. List 99, however, does not give approval for an individual to be employed by a school. The head teacher or employer then has the responsibility to check with the Criminal Records Bureau to see whether there are any cautions and convictions. That is an additional safeguard, which was introduced in legislation under this Administration, and it has the purpose of protecting children.

Gisela Stuart: Can I urge the Secretary of State to continue to remain calm, and not be pressurised into releasing any figures until she knows exactly what is involved? I urge her not to listen to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and in her review to look at the question whether it is appropriate for Ministers to continue to be involved in those decisions, particularly when they are the result of police investigations or court or police action, and should not be left to those agencies?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that issue. I would like to consider whether it is possible for Ministers to be removed from decision making on those sensitive cases in future, as that would help to restore public confidence in the system. I shall therefore return to the House as soon as possible to see whether we can make that improvement.

Paul Burstow: The Secretary of State said that a Bill will be introduced in February, but it will take some time for it to complete all its stages in both Houses and to implement it thereafter. Has she given any consideration to the proposals made by the NSPCC that we need interim arrangements, such as ensuring that all individuals on the sex offenders register are on both the protection of vulnerable adults list and List 99, at least until there is a review of barring restrictions? Will the Government consider that, as it will give a great deal of assurance to many people?

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Even though we are progressing the legislation as speedily as possible and will introduce it in February—I hope that it will be passed with the full co-operation of all parties this Session—we cannot implement it before 2007 because it demands a new IT system, with full implementation in 2008. That is why I set out both in my written ministerial statement yesterday and in my statement today the interim steps that I would like to consider. That review includes the question of whether Ministers should be involved, or whether they could be removed from the decision-making process. It will also consider the way in which police advice can be incorporated more fully into the decision and, indeed, whether it is possible to bring all the lists together more closely in the interim period.

Adrian Bailey: This unfortunate case has highlighted the fact that we have a piecemeal legislative framework to deal with an issue that is complex and difficult to administer. I welcome the Minister's comments, but may I remind her that this is a serious and complex issue that should not be dealt with using the knee-jerk reactions advocated by some Opposition Members? In the review, will she not only ensure that we have simpler legislation that is fit for purpose, but back that up with recruitment processes that will enable schools to recruit people without being strangled in a web of bureaucratic interventions and research?

Ruth Kelly: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the seriousness of the issues and their implications for child protection, particularly public confidence in the system. It is my responsibility to put the full facts in the public domain as soon as possible and ensure their accuracy, as well as to establish the whereabouts of the individuals involved and ascertain whether they are considered to pose a risk to children. In the review, I shall look at whether it is possible to tighten the process further and align the registers more closely. I would point out to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that all employers have a responsibility not just to check List 99 if they are a school but to make a CRB check if the individual concerned has not just moved from a previous employer, whose references they have a responsibility to take up. The CRB check will reveal whether there is a relevant caution or conviction that needs to be taken into account by the head teacher, and I very much hope that individuals would not be employed if such a conviction or caution were revealed.

Nigel Dodds: Some of these matters are devolved in Northern Ireland, as the Secretary of State knows, although the relevant Minister is responsible to the House. Has she consulted with her counterpart in the Northern Ireland Office and, if not, will she do so urgently so that my constituents and others in Northern Ireland can be assured that these matters have been taken seriously and addressed in that part of the country, too?

Ruth Kelly: I certainly will, and in the review I shall consult not just Ministers, but the relevant officials in the devolved Administrations.

Margaret Moran: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is hypocritical of the Opposition, who had 18 years to deal with these matters, and it is this Government who introduced the most comprehensive range of child protection measures ever seen? Is she aware that the Protection of Children Bill proposed to amalgamate List 99 and a new register established by the Bill? Will she give an assurance that that will now happen? As there have been delays in the amalgamation of computer databases, will she give assurances that if there are any further delays due to the technology, interim arrangements will be made to safeguard our children?

Ruth Kelly: I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. It is important that we take all the steps that are necessary to tighten the system as appropriate, to bring the lists as closely into line as it is possible for them to be brought into line within the current legal framework, and for all decisions to be looked at from the point of view of the risk to children and whether we can protect children better by making decisions on a more precautionary basis. I shall certainly consider all those facts. My hon. Friend is right to point out that not only has List 99 been tightened and the criteria for automatic inclusion on that list been broadened under this Government, but the sex offenders register—I acknowledged in my statement that the work was done under the previous Administration before that Bill was introduced—has provided an additional safeguard for employers to check before they employ an individual.

Brian Binley: As a new Member, having been shocked at the Minister's ability to avoid responsibility, I seek a straight answer. When did she realise that the current arrangements were anomalous, and when did she decide to tighten the law?

Ruth Kelly: It was this Government who asked Sir Michael Bichard to carry out his review of our child protection procedures, and we committed in the Queen's Speech to legislate on the new vetting and barring scheme during this Session. We have secured a slot, which means that if there is cross-party support for the proposals, we will able to get the Bill into law this Session. The question for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues is whether they will give us that necessary cross-party support.

Tom Levitt: It is a matter of profound regret that today clearly marks the end of political consensus on the matter. May I urge my right hon. Friend to reject the synthetic tabloid anger that she has heard from the Opposition Benches and continue in her categorical and robust response to the situation? The last thing we want is a drip, drip, drip of information and, even worse, speculation, which may be destabilising not only in this place, but in our schools and classrooms.

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that we should put the facts into the public domain at the earliest opportunity, but that that ought to be done in a considered and ordered fashion—first, to make sure that we have the precise numbers, and also to ensure that at the same time as those numbers are put into the public domain, we know precisely where those individuals are employed and the action that we intend to take.

Greg Clark: The Secretary of State had to be dragged to the Chamber to make a statement, yet she is incapable of answering even the most basic questions. Are there any cases in which she personally has been involved—yes or no?

Ruth Kelly: I take responsibility for every single case that has been determined under my stewardship as Secretary of State for Education and Skills.

Huw Irranca-Davies: This is one of the occasions when it is difficult to separate the role of politician from that of parent, grandparent, godparent or uncle. I urge on my right hon. Friend the need to take the matter forward with urgency, but also with due consideration. Can she give us some idea of the scale of the review that she has ordered and how long it might take? There is an issue of urgency, but will she please not respond to the pitchfork and blazing firebrand mentality, which would be the worst possible way to deal with the situation?

Ruth Kelly: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that these are urgent matters, but we need to give all the issues our due consideration. When I say I intend to update the House as soon as it is possible for me to update the House, I mean in the next week or two. I do not mean in the next month or two. As soon as it is possible to ascertain the facts, I will come and update the House on those facts.

Point of Order

Nigel Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, during questions to the Solicitor-General, the Solicitor-General said that the Prime Minister had indeed been consulted over the decision to drop the charges in relation to the Stormont spy ring, yet yesterday in the House the Prime Minister told us that
	"as far as I am aware, I certainly was not consulted on whether this prosecution should be dropped"—[Official Report, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 283.],
	and on 14 December the Prime Minister said:
	"Obviously, we were not consulted about the matter"—[Official Report, 14 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1296.]
	Can you ensure that the matter is cleared up, and that the Prime Minister properly accounts for it to Members and clarifies the extent of his involvement?

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, but I do not want to do his job as well as my own. What he should do is put down parliamentary questions to clear the matter up.

Crossrail Bill [Instruction No. 2]

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. Motions 1, 2 and 3 will be debated together.

Alistair Darling: I beg to move,
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed—
	(1) that it have power to consider—
	  (a) the extension of permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in relation to development which is the subject of environmental assessment in connection with the Bill;
	  (b) additional power to carry out works for the purpose of reinstating facilities whose operation or use is discontinued because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;
	  (c) provision relating to the abstraction of water;
	  (d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by the Bill which consists of a work other than a scheduled work;
	  (e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the application of provisions of the Bill to things authorised by an order under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992;
	  (f) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding any of the following—
	(i) a crossover at Farringdon;
	(ii) sidings at Westbourne Park;
	(iii) diversion of the Moorgate Station Sewer;
	(iv) a jetty and conveyor at West India Docks South;
	(v) use of the River Lea for barge loading and holding areas;
	(vi) realignment of the Docklands Light Railway at Custom House;
	(vii) facilities for handling excavated materials at Manor Wharf;
	(viii) a shaft at Eleanor Street;
	(ix) diversion of the Hackney to Abbey Mills Sewer and the Wick Lane Sewer;
	(x) a bridge over Hollow Hill Lane, Langley;
	  (g) realignment of the proposed running tunnel beneath Shorts Gardens, Camden;
	  (h) alterations to a ticket hall at the proposed Whitechapel Station;
	  (i) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding approval in relation to highway accesses;
	  (j) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the acquisition of land at Basin Approach, Lowell Street and land at Billingsgate Market;
	  (k) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the creation and acquisition of easements or other rights over land;
	  (l) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill (disapplication and modification of heritage controls), so far as relating to the City of Westminster, the City of London and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
	  (m) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used;
	and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;
	(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed is empowered to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if—
	  (a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and
	  (b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
	Before I deal with the merits of the motions, let me put them in context, which may help hon. Members who were not present on 19 July last year or who have put the whole business behind them. The House will recall that on that day last year, it agreed, after a vote, to give the Crossrail Bill a Second Reading. The Bill will enable Crossrail to be constructed and puts in place the necessary powers to acquire land and also allow the Crossrail services to run.
	The Second Reading agreed the principle of the Bill, which is to construct Crossrail—a railway that will run between the termini at Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east and Maidenhead in the west. The main new intermediate stations will be at Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon, Liverpool Street, Whitechapel, the Isle of Dogs and Custom House.
	I remind the House that this is a hybrid Bill. These are Bills used for projects usually of national importance, where the Government take the lead in terms of strategic development. But crucially, because it affects specific private interests, it is dealt with differently in both Houses of Parliament. Such Bills are rare. The last one, I believe, was about 10 years ago. The procedures in relation to them are complex. Although I shall endeavour to give the House my best understanding of what the Select Committee can and cannot do, clearly the Select Committee will be advised by the Clerks of the House, and much lies in their hands.
	It might be helpful if I set out what I understand the procedure will be. We are talking about building a new railway line through London, through a densely populated area. Many private interests are affected and many people may be in favour of the Bill in principle but may have understandable concerns about their own interests, which need to be dealt with.
	The Bill has aspects of both a public and a private Bill. It is brought forward by the Government and, like any other public Bill, it contains provisions that affect everyone or affect particular classes of people. However, the Bill also contains provisions that have an impact on particular individuals, notably in relation to the powers to acquire particular land. That is why the House requires such a Bill to comply with elements of the procedures for private Bills, as well as complying with the usual procedures for public Bills. The main difference is an extra Select Committee stage in each House. Hon. Members know that the Select Committee has been set up under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and it will consider the petitions from those whose individual rights will be affected.
	In addition to agreeing to give the Bill a Second Reading, the House also agreed to give instructions to the Select Committee, which we are discussing today. Hon. Members who were here in July know that the instructions, rather than the merits of Crossrail, took up most of the debate. The House agreed two sets of instructions in the vote in July: the first set allows the Select Committee to report to the House on the environmental impact of the railway; the second instructs the Select Committee to treat the principle of the Bill as including the termini of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides and the provision of intermediate stations at the locations that I have set out.

Eric Pickles: rose—

Alistair Darling: I know about the hon. Gentleman's specific concern, and he can rest assured that I will give way to him later and deal with his points—although this debate is limited to two hours, I shall endeavour to let in all concerned hon. Members. The hon. Gentleman and I have had a discussion behind the Speaker's Chair, so I know what he is going to say and will address his specific concern.
	As I said on 19 July, Official Report, column 1125, the principle of the Bill is established on Second Reading, but the Select Committee must be given instructions to enable it to deal with the matter in a manageable way. As I have said, we have accepted instructions on environmental matters and that the principle of the Bill establishes the termini and principal stations.
	We are considering three motions today. The first permits the Committee to consider a number of late petitions that were outside the deadline, and I can deal with that matter quickly. One petitioner was apparently involved in an accident and taken to casualty, which prevented him from lodging his petition, and five others sent their petitions to the Department for Transport rather than to the House of Commons. I think that most hon. Members would agree that it is fair to let those petitions go forward.
	The second motion allows the Committee to consider petitions in relation to Reading and Ebbsfleet, which took up a lot of time in July, and I shall return to that matter in a moment.
	The third motion allows the Committee to consider petitions on the additional provisions that the Government intend to introduce—the additional provisions change the detail of the project and have been identified in discussions with interested parties since the Bill's introduction early last year. I have placed in the Vote Office copies of the instructions on the extensions to Reading and Ebbsfleet, the instructions on additional provisions and the motion on petitions lodged after the deadline, as well as an explanatory memorandum on each motion.
	I shall now deal with the two main instructions before the House today, which concern the extensions to Reading and Ebbsfleet and the additional provisions. On the extensions to Reading and Ebbsfleet, the Government want to see Crossrail built and therefore came to the House of Commons with a specific proposition, which involves an economic case that stacks up, which will be operationally effective and which can be delivered. As I said to the House in July, if we were not to nail down the proposition, this Crossrail Bill would meet exactly the same fate as the previous Crossrail Bill, which collapsed under its own weight in the early 1990s.
	First, on the western terminus, we decided that Crossrail will end at Maidenhead. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) argued with some force that Crossrail should not stop in Maidenhead, and, possibly for different reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) argued that it should continue to Reading. Much was made of the question whether the Select Committee would be competent to examine the matter, and my best advice at the time was that it would. On my instruction, however, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), said at the close of the debate that if that is not the case, we would introduce an amendment after further discussion with the Clerks to make sure that it is possible to discuss such things.
	If the House agrees the motion today, the Committee will be able to hear petitions in relation to an extension to Reading and make recommendations to this House. If the Government were to accept such representations, the matter would be taken forward by a Transport and Works Act 1992 order, which, as those who are familiar with such matters know, is a well-established way of building projects such as railway lines.
	Because the matter concerns the end of the line—the same point applies to Ebbsfleet—we are not discussing a lot of property acquisition and interference with individuals' rights. The key issues are signalling and the capacity of Reading station.

Martin Salter: rose—

Alistair Darling: Perhaps my hon. Friend wants to say how pleased he is that the Government have made that decision—I expect that he is composing an intervention to say just that. If we pass the motion, it will allow the Select Committee to hear petitions in relation to the extension. The procedure will be different from the Crossrail Bill. I repeat that the Government are not persuaded that we should extend Crossrail at this stage for reasons that I do not think it necessary to set out again, although I will happily do so. The motion allows the debate that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West are anxious to hold.

Theresa May: Assuming that the House passes the motion, I welcome the fact that the Select Committee will be given an instruction to examine the extension from Maidenhead to Reading. One issue is the cost of the necessary works, some of which relate to existing capacity problems at Reading station. Changes to that capacity have been on Network Rail's list of works to do for some time, but sadly there is little prospect of their being undertaken immediately. I want to clarify that the Select Committee will not get hung up on that aspect of the extension and will be able to examine the benefits to Crossrail of an extension from Maidenhead to Reading, rather than rejecting the extension simply because Network Rail is not doing the work that it should to increase capacity at Reading station.

Alistair Darling: That is the precise area in which I cannot be hard and fast. I cannot tell members of the Select Committee exactly what they should or should not consider, subject to the general parameters that we are setting out. I hope that the Select Committee will address itself to the merits or otherwise of extending Crossrail to Reading at some stage. I would like to think that some of the capacity problems at Reading station will have been resolved when Crossrail is constructed. What the right hon. Lady said is right, and it is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West will undoubtedly make in his intervention. There are problems at Reading, and I have had many discussions with Network Rail about trying to sort them out. If Crossrail were extended, new considerations would arise, but it would be wrong to say that the Select Committee could not consider them. The Select Committee might say, "Until those things have been sorted out, it would be daft to extend the line." All and sundry have advised me that today's motion will allow the discussion that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West want, which is as good an assurance as I can give.

Martin Salter: The Secretary of State will be relieved to know that I support the motion and welcome its tabling, but some key points need to be teased out. If the 1992 Act were used to authorise the extension of Crossrail to Reading, who would be the applicant? Does the Secretary of State envisage that Crossrail would be the applicant if the 1992 Act were triggered, or would it be the petitioners themselves?

Alistair Darling: That matter would have to be decided. Under the 1992 Act, the applicant would be the operators of the railway, which could be Cross London Rail Links or Network Rail. Whatever Government are around at that time would have to be involved, because I do not suppose that the operation would be cost-free. All I am promising the House is that if the motion is passed, the Select Committee will have an opportunity to hear the petitions. We are nowhere near saying, "This is the next project, and this is what we might do." Crossrail would be by far the biggest single engineering project anywhere in Europe, and I am anxious to get something manageable. I have told the House many times, and especially in July, that we must ensure that the project is manageable. I hope, in that context, that I will satisfy hon. Members that we can discuss the possibility of an extension to Reading and apply the same consideration to Ebbsfleet.
	We decided not to go to Ebbsfleet largely for operational reasons because of the complexity of the lines in north Kent. However, representations are being made about that.

Diane Abbott: The people of Hackney are glad that the Government are making progress on the Crossrail project. There is no objection in principle to the Select Committee taking petitions about the extension from Maidenhead to Reading. However, the people of Hackney and the east end would be concerned if the project became so unmanageable that it ran into the sand. Will the Secretary of State assure the people of Hackney that the Government will give it good speed, that we will guard against its becoming unmanageable, that the finance will be available for the railway, for which my constituents have waited so long, and that, when we have built Crossrail, we can move on to Crossrail 2—the Chelsea to Hackney line?

Alistair Darling: If my hon. Friend and I live to see Crossrail 1, we shall be happy. We can then turn our attention to Crossrail 2. Of course the Government are committed to the project. That is why we introduced an extensive Bill to make it possible. However, my hon. Friend's main point is important. Unless the project is kept to a manageable size—even then, it is very large—the same fate awaits it as befell the previous Crossrail project.
	I cannot tell our colleagues on the Select Committee what to do—and would not try to do so— but I state no more than the obvious when I say that the more complex the project becomes and the more that is added to it, the greater the risk that it will not get going. There is almost unanimity in the House that the project should go ahead, although hon. Members have their individual concerns. The Government are committed to doing everything that we can to make it happen. However, we must try to keep it to a manageable size so that we can finance and deliver it.

Mark Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is also the Government's role, in trying to push the project forward, to take some control of its manageability? I accept that we have a hybrid Bill and it is ultimately for a Select Committee to determine the matter, but as the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly pointed out, in London we want some progress on the basics of Crossrail. It must now be up to the Government to make their voice heard to ensure that the funding comes together, even if it is for a limited part of the Crossrail plan. We should not allow the Ebbsfleet to Reading aspect to delay progress. That must be the Government's role; it cannot be only the Select Committee's role. All hon. Members look to the Secretary of State for some guidance to ensure genuine progress.

Alistair Darling: Absolutely. That is why we introduced a Bill that established the principle of what the railway would comprise. It will run from Maidenhead through Shenfield to Abbey Wood. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the preceding two or three years, prospective other parts of the line were removed from the proposals simply to get something that would stack up and could be delivered. We are inviting the House to give instructions to the Committee to ensure, as far as possible, that that happens.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members are entitled to put their views and make suggestions. A hybrid Bill means that the Select Committee will have the difficult task of hearing petitions from many people, some of whom may be against the whole Bill and others who have specific concerns about, for example, stations or waste disposal when the work is being done. When we get the Select Committee's report, the Government will have to take a view about how much we can accommodate. For example, if the Select Committee suggested that there should be a station every 100 yd, the Government would say no because the project would collapse.
	We made a specific proposition, which the House endorsed, albeit after a vote, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I want it to get through as expeditiously as possible while taking account of people's legitimate concerns. However, we are bound to cause some difficulty in establishing the principle.

Eric Pickles: rose—

Doug Naysmith: rose—

Alistair Darling: I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is champing at the bit. He will have his moment shortly but I had better deal with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) first.

Doug Naysmith: My right hon. Friend will recall that, when the matter was discussed in July, the effects of Crossrail on the west country, Bristol and the line from Wales were raised. Clearly, the problems remain major short-term and long-term worries for the future development of the line. What effect does he believe that today's proposals will have on those worries and fears? Will they help to assuage them or make them worse? The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) mentioned the huge congestion at Reading and if the proposals make it worse, that will not be helpful.

Alistair Darling: As I said to my hon. Friend in July, when Crossrail is completed, it will help west country services. From memory, approximately £1 billion of expenditure is designed to improve the approaches to Paddington station. One of the problems with them is the presence of various goods yards. Although there are not many goods trains every day, they are long and heavy and each manoeuvre can take six or seven minutes' capacity out of the line. It does not take many such instances, especially in the rush hour, to start holding up traffic. My hon. Friend, as a regular user of the line to Bristol and the south-west, knows that several pinch points need to be sorted out.
	Since we had the debate in July, the new franchise for the Great Western line has been launched and I believe that that will lead to some improvements. Some disruption is inevitable when building a railway, but once Crossrail is completed, it will help because it means additional capacity and taking out some of the blockages that cause some of the current delays.

Meg Hillier: I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) about the need for London, especially east London, to benefit from the project. If we get Crossrail, Hackney will experience an improvement in the lines from Enfield and Chingford and in the frequency of services. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I represent the only inner London borough with no tubes and we are therefore grateful for any prospect of train improvement. However, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the complexity of Crossrail, which he has clearly outlined, will not have a detrimental impact on the Olympic developments, which are also a welcome contribution to Hackney?

Alistair Darling: I do not believe that they will. For the avoidance of doubt, I have long said that Crossrail would not be ready in time for the Olympics. It is independent of them but steps will be taken to ensure that it will not interfere with the first priority of delivering the Olympics and the transport infrastructure to support them, on which much work is already under way. The work can be phased in such a way as to ensure that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her welcome because there is no doubt that, when Crossrail is built, it will substantially benefit the east end of London, especially constituencies such as hers and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, where the need to improve employment and transport links is obvious. Both my hon. Friends have made representations about that.

Peter Luff: rose—

Alistair Darling: I should really like to consider Brentwood and Ongar now rather than giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

Peter Luff: It is a simple point.

Alistair Darling: I am always nervous of those, but I shall let the hon. Gentleman make it.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy. What additional capacity will be created on services to Paddington as a result of Crossrail?

Alistair Darling: The point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West was that part of the works will improve the access in and out of the various goods yards to the west of Paddington. That means that the line is less likely to be blocked by trains coming in and out of them. If the hon. Gentleman would like chapter and verse on the matter, I am more than happy to let him have it. However, in the context of the instructions to the Committee, it would not be such a good idea.

George Howarth: The people I represent will be alarmed by the generosity with which the project is being treated, in contrast to Merseytram 1, which my right hon. Friend refused. In those circumstances, he cannot rely on my vote for the motions.

Alistair Darling: It is kind of my right hon. Friend to tell me that, but it does not come as a surprise to me. I am not going to go into the merits of the Merseytram proposal now, for obvious reasons, not least that the company is now litigating against me and the Government. However, I note what he says.
	To make a general point, I think that all of us, especially those who represent constituencies outside London, would do well to remember that the UK economy depends to a large extent on the well being of the London economy. That is a fact of life, and all our policies have to reflect that. That is not to say, however, that we should not make investments in different parts of the country, and we are doing so, but they have to be the right ones.
	I am now going, whether the House likes it or not, to Brentwood and Ongar. The instruction does not allow for consideration by the Committee of the truncation of the route. When the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar raised this issue with me in July, he had tabled his own amendment—although it was not selected by the Speaker—which would have allowed the eastern terminal to be sited at Liverpool Street. I made the point that to have a railway line that ran only from Paddington to Liverpool Street simply would not stack up, and that it had to be longer than that. That proposal was just not acceptable.
	I can help the hon. Gentleman to some extent, but probably not to the extent that he would like. My best advice is that the motion will allow the Select Committee to hear petitions, but not to decide that the route should be truncated further to the east of Shenfield. It could, however, hear petitions in relation to where exactly the terminus should be. For example, as I understand it, if there were a proposition that the station should not be where it is now but a short distance away from there, it would be within the competence of the Committee to decide on that.
	It will be up to the Select Committee, acting on its own views and on the advice of the Officers of the House, to decide exactly what it does. However, it could not, for example, say, "Actually, the line should not end at Shenfield. It should terminate further to the east." I understand that issues have been raised relating to the siting of the Shenfield terminus, and petitions on that could be heard. Having said that, if the Select Committee chooses to hear petitions on that general principle—on advice, it believes that it can do so—I cannot prevent that. But I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that the instruction that I am inviting the House to endorse today would have the effect of allowing people to argue that the terminus should be located not at Shenfield but further in.
	The hon. Gentleman raised this matter with me in July, and I have had the chance to look and see what I said to him at the time, although my recollection is that it was in the context of his amendment, to which I referred.

Eric Pickles: rose—

Alistair Darling: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he will not be happy.

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, particularly for trailing this intervention. He will know that my concern has always been that, because Shenfield is mentioned in the long title of the Bill, it will not be possible to petition the Committee or to allow it to make a recommendation to truncate the route. On Second Reading in July, the right hon. Gentleman differentiated between the principle of the Bill and the proposed route, and suggested that it would be possible for the Committee to examine where the termini should be and to make recommendations on that. For further clarity, I shall remind the House that he said of the Select Committee that
	"it should treat the principle as having been established by Second Reading. Our instruction goes further, in that it suggests the route. I repeat, however, that if someone came along and said that the stations or the termini should be different, the Select Committee may well want to consider that. It would be up to the Committee."—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1126.]
	That is at considerable variance from what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested today, which is that it is a matter of principle, set in stone, that the terminus not be anywhere other than at Shenfield.
	What is the purpose of allowing a Committee to hear petitions if it is not allowed to consider them and to make recommendations? I have known the right hon. Gentleman for a long time, and I have always accepted his word without reservation, but I must ask him to reflect most carefully on the clear undertaking that he gave me in the Chamber in July, and to consider whether further instructions need to be given to the Select Committee.

Alistair Darling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for the way in which he expressed his view. I certainly remember that debate, and I hope that I went out of my way to accommodate as many hon. Members as I possibly could. I understand, as a constituency Member, precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making; it is his duty to ensure that, as far as he can, he enables his constituents to make their voices heard.
	On Second Reading, I said:
	"we have tabled an instruction to the Select Committee to regard the principle of the Bill as including a proposition, namely, the provision of a railway running from Maidenhead in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east, with a prescribed number of named stations on its route."—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1125.]
	That was the principle that was established on Second Reading, and the instructions to the Committee are in line with that. A few moments ago, I said that the House could give instructions to the Select Committee. As I understand it, if there were petitions relating to Shenfield, the Committee would be able to hear them. However, to return to the points raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, the reason that we have prescribed a terminus is to try to put a concrete proposition before the Committee. Otherwise, I fear that we would be all over the place.
	I think that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar takes the view that he wants Crossrail to terminate not at Shenfield but at some point nearer to the city. Or perhaps he is concerned about individual issues relating to Shenfield such as the loss of car parking or the alignment of the tracks. The Select Committee could certainly consider those latter points, but if he is asking whether it could decide that Crossrail should terminate at Liverpool Street, I have to say that it could not. On Second Reading, my exchange with the hon. Gentleman stretched into column 1127, but I am not going to read the whole thing into the record. However, it was in that context that I made the point that my proposition was that the railway ought to go to Shenfield.

Eric Pickles: I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was not in the context of Liverpool Street. His understanding of the situation was my understanding of the situation, with regard to the advice on Shenfield. However, in that debate, he told me that my worries were groundless. He clearly differentiated between the principle of the Bill and the proposed route. He said that that the instruction went further than dealing only with the principle, and that it suggested the route. He referred to the terminus as being part of the route. All I need is for my constituents to petition, as they have done, and for the Committee to hear those petitions, which it will do, so that they get a fair hearing. I then need the Committee to be able to make a recommendation to the House as to whether the terminus should be at Shenfield, Stratford or somewhere else, so that the House can decide on the matter. Having been given an assurance by the right hon. Gentleman in July, I do not now want my constituents to be prevented from having a fair hearing. Nor do I want the Select Committee to be prevented from making such a recommendation because it has been placed in a legal straitjacket by the House.

Alistair Darling: The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Select Committee will decide what it will and will not hear. Yes, it will be able to hear petitions, but it will not be able to decide to truncate the railway. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman and I were at cross purposes in July. Having read what I said at the time, I think that I made myself reasonably clear in this context. At column 1127, we were discussing these representations in the context of the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which was designed to terminate the railway at Liverpool Street. I made the point that our proposition stacked up, both operationally and in economic terms.
	It will certainly be up to the Select Committee to decide whether it hears the petitions, and I am sure that it will try to be as liberal as it can in that regard. However, unless we give it some instruction on the parameters of the Bill, we will be in some difficulty. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will not be satisfied with that, and as I said a few moments ago, that is inevitable. If we do not get something manageable, however, we will get nothing at all.

Mike Gapes: My constituents in Ilford, South and many other residents of the London borough of Redbridge and other boroughs between Liverpool Street and Shenfield would be appalled if the line were truncated at Liverpool Street. Many people travel throughout Essex into work in London and use that line. In Ilford, we are looking forward to a new station being built to cope with Crossrail and a new entrance and redesign as part of Ilford's regeneration. My constituents are therefore supportive of my right hon. Friend's statement that the line will not be truncated.

Alistair Darling: It would make a nonsense of the Crossrail proposition if it were to stop at Liverpool Street. The economics just would not stack up. My hon. Friend therefore makes a fair point.
	The third element, which has not attracted so much attention so far, but to which I should draw the House's attention, is the additional instructions that will allow the Select Committee to consider matters subsequent to the Bill's introduction, on which we know that it will have to be amended, such as provisions in relation to the removal of waste from different sites, different alignments of crossovers and so on. Basically, if the House agrees the motion, the Government will introduce amendments in line with those instructions, which will allow the Committee to hear petitions if they are received. We intend to introduce those additional provisions in two batches, reflecting the extent of the preparatory work required. The first batch will be introduced to the Committee next Wednesday, at which point a newspaper advert will appear that will trigger a four-week petitioning period on each additional provision, following which petitions lodged will be considered by the Committee in the usual way. The second batch will be brought forward once work is complete and will also have a four-week petitioning period. Currently, we expect the second batch to be introduced in March this year.

Lyn Brown: May I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and welcome Crossrail on behalf of my constituents? Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that the Government are keen to encourage the use of waterways, particularly the River Lea, to minimise the impact of waste removal and disruption to local road networks and residents, which will clearly be caused by the creation of this railway?

Alistair Darling: Certainly, we will use whatever way we can find to reduce the environmental impact of construction, especially that caused by the removal of a considerable amount of waste. No doubt my hon. Friend will keep an eye on the Select Committee with regard to that. I am not sure whether she is volunteering to serve on the Standing Committee that will follow, but the Whips are no doubt paying attention.
	I hesitate to return to Brentwood and Ongar, but I think that I need to do so. I think that I referred to stations east of Shenfield when I should have said west. I am not sure whether this will help the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar, but were the Select Committee to come to the view that the terminus should be further east of Shenfield, that could be done, as that would extend it, not truncate it. I am not sure whether that helps him, but I thought that I should mention that for the sake of completeness.

Lee Scott: I also want to support the extension of Crossrail to Ilford. Previously, I was the cabinet member responsible for the regeneration of Ilford town centre. Although Crossrail does not run through my constituency, I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) was suggesting that it should necessarily stop at Liverpool Street or Stratford and not go to Ilford. I am sure that it will benefit my constituents, and it should go to Ilford.

Alistair Darling: Let me remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said a few moments ago. Crossrail is a huge project and hugely expensive, it will be a massive engineering enterprise, and we must have a deliverable proposition. Future generations will look back and regard this as the one and only opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to get it right. It is of huge economic value to the east end of London in particular, to London as a whole, and to the wider country, as I said.

Mark Field: rose—

Andrew Rosindell: rose—

Alistair Darling: I will give way to the two hon. Gentlemen and then come to a conclusion, as this is a two-hour debate.

Mark Field: The Secretary of State will be glad to know that I am not going to say anything about Ilford. The third instruction, however, involves the relocation and change in methodology of the crossover under the Barbican—now also a listed building—in my constituency allowing for the deployment of a different construction method. There are great concerns in my constituency, as in many other built-up constituencies, about the disruption and noise, and there are some sensible suggestions in the third instruction, although I appreciate that it is a bit of a mish-mash. In particular, the changes will remove the need for a work site in Aldersgate street, which would have been extremely disruptive to Barbican residents as well as causing a great a deal of noise and traffic disruption for many commuters coming into the City of London daily. The change in the method of construction of the cavern in which the crossover is located is also intended to reduce noise, which is greatly to be welcomed.
	I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence in allowing me to make a longer than normal intervention—as the Secretary of State rightly said, we have a two-hour debate, and very few Members will be able to make speeches.

Alistair Darling: I think that the hon. Gentleman is saying that he has now made his speech, and will not seek to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State has pointed out that if Crossrail were to stop at Liverpool Street, it would not be economically viable. A consensus seems to be building in the House, and we are all agreed that it should go to Ilford, but perhaps that is where it should stop. The hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) is enthusiastic for the Crossrail project to go ahead, and I hope that the Secretary of State will consider placing the huge depot not in Romford but in Ilford, South, and that he will have the privilege of that, too.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman has expressed his views on the placing of the depot at Romford, and the Select Committee will no doubt hear petitions on that, too.

Mike Gapes: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Alistair Darling: I will do so once more, and that is it.

Mike Gapes: I want to inform the Secretary of State that last week the all-party Crossrail group visited the channel tunnel rail link works at St. Pancras and saw the effective protection and sound-proofing of the yard at Bedford. It was a great pity that the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) was not able to see that, as it might change his mind about having a depot in Romford to help all of London and Essex and Crossrail as a whole.

Alistair Darling: My hon. Friend has made his speech, too, so we are making progress. I am quite sure that those matters will be considered, and I am glad that the all-party group went to St. Pancras, which is an excellent example of the Government's commitment to improving Britain's railways. When it opens in just under a couple of years, it will make a big difference to people's ability to travel to the continent.
	Let us not lose sight of the fact that this project is essential not just for the future development of London but, as I said, for the wider UK economy. There will be many difficult decisions to take, and I envy neither the Select Committee nor my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield—who is sitting in his place reflecting on what awaits him—their tasks. The Government will have to table amendments such as those that have just been mentioned, because we want to do everything possible to get the project going and to see that Crossrail is built. On that basis, I hope that the House will give its support to the three instructions.

Chris Grayling: I am not sure whether I need to keep my remarks short because it is a short debate, or longer because most Members have already made their speeches in interventions on the Secretary of State. As he said, however, the debate is about instructions to the Select Committee. I slightly differ from his interpretation, however, that today's debate is about the instructions that will be given to the Committee—of course, they are a revision to the instructions that will be given to the Select Committee, because there was an extensive debate last summer about those instructions. There probably remains some confusion, despite the Secretary of State's attempts to clarify the position today.
	We have three motions to consider today, the first of which, as he says, represents a series of technical matters that have emerged since Second Reading. Some will undoubtedly argue that they should have been anticipated in the original drafting. I should be interested to hear from the Minister what will happen if the Bill proceeds to its later stages. If further technical issues emerge, how will they be handled? We realise, though, that in the case of such complex projects some things can slip through the net, and the motion is not controversial. As the Secretary of State explained, the third motion deals with a minor matter, and there should be no problem with it in the right circumstances.
	The Secretary of State rightly said that the crux of the debate lies in the second motion. It highlights the somewhat chaotic approach that I believe the Government have taken to the project—and that is the view only of those who subscribe to the cock-up rather than the conspiracy theory. We all understand, of course, that taking a hybrid Bill through the House is a more complex process than dealing with a conventional Bill. Most Secretaries of State probably deal with only one hybrid Bill during their tenure, and this represents a learning curve for this Secretary of State as well as for Members throughout the House.
	I think that the kindest possible interpretation of the second motion is that the Government are all over the place. I shall give some of the reasons for the confusion in a moment, but we ought to bear in mind the original importance of the measure to the Government's plans. Their blueprint for "Transport: a ten year plan" stated:
	"For our modelling of the implementation of Plan measures we assumed that by 2010 the following projects had been implemented (in addition to those in the baseline)".
	It referred to the inaptly named Thameslink 2000, and to
	"An eastwest rail link, such as CrossRail".
	It stated:
	"An eastwest rail link, such as CrossRail, will be the crucial element in providing crowding relief to eastwest Underground lines (Central, Jubilee, District, Circle, Metropolitan). Our modelling suggests that, without it, most eastwest lines on the Underground would be more crowded than today, despite other improvements."
	As passengers who use those lines know full well, they are pretty crowded today.
	The issues that we are debating are at the heart of one of the Government's flagship transport projects, by their own admission, and any changes of this kind should deserve close and careful examination. We are, or should be, debating an important development in a project that is central to the Government's strategy to deliver its 10-year plan for transport—but, as we know, that is not what today's debate is about.
	We are debating changes that will not benefit the British travelling public by the year 2010, as we were originally promised. In a humorous aside to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the Secretary of State said that he and she would be lucky to see Crossrail 1 open in their lifetimes, and given the current rate of progress he is probably not far off the mark. The 2010 promise has long since been quietly abandoned, along with many of the other promises made by the Secretary of State's Department over the past eight years.
	The motion is also a complete U-turn on the Government's position a few months ago. It represents either chaos in the Department's planning or a slightly disingenuous attempt to keep people in Maidenhead and the Ebbsfleet area happy. Those locations are in the Labour party's focus, as they contain a number of key marginal seats.

Martin Salter: What about Reading?

Chris Grayling: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will be fighting hard to keep his seat in the run-up to the next election, and will want to be able to tell his constituents about the hard work he has put into trying to ensure that their rail service is improved.
	Ministers will, I am sure, remember debating vigorously last summer the issue of where the route would end with my predecessor and Members representing parts of the south-east. Before Second Reading, Ministers issued an instruction to the Committee that clearly limited the scope of its work. The Secretary of State will recall the exchange between my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg). My right hon. Friend said:
	"The argument that he has just evinced suggests that he considers the termination of Crossrail in the west at Maidenhead a point of principle. Am I correct in my understanding of the Government's position?"
	The Under-Secretary of State replied:
	"That is the case, but a Select Committee can consider other related matters. The instruction invites the Committee to inform the House of, but not to comment on or analyse, the nature of representations on the environmental impact of the project that constitute opposition to the principle of the Bill and that, for that reason, fall outside the Committee's remit."—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1115.]
	No one will deny that the Government's decision to change their mind since last summer will be welcomed in Maidenhead, in the Reading area and in north Kent, where it will be possible to give consideration to the Ebbsfleet extension. I know that there is much interest in those areas. I also know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) will have been extremely disappointed by the Secretary of State's comments today. He will have been disappointed to learn that his representations have not led to additional flexibility for the Committee to consider the matters that he has raised over the past few months. He should, however, take comfort from the fact that the motions are not quite what they seem. They open up the possibility of discussion of the alternatives, which the Government appeared to preclude last summer, but I see no evidence that those alternatives are under serious consideration. The Secretary of State himself has said that there is no guarantee that the Government will be able to do anything at the end of all the discussions.
	The truth is that the public face of the project does not include detailed costings or portrayals of different options for the extra elements of the project. The projected costings outlined by the Secretary of State last year and in the official Crossrail economic benefits document do not take into account the cost of adding those extra elements. The Secretary of State said today that they were nowhere near becoming a reality; he is merely giving permission for them to be discussed in Committee. I do not think that there should be any expectation in the Reading and Maidenhead areas or in north Kent that if the Committee tells the House that it thinks they are a good idea, the matter will proceed any further.
	The Secretary of State is a shrewd man, and the Treasury is always active in taking an interest in these issues. Have Ministers made initial cost estimates for the areas that the Committee is being given freedom to consider? Has the Secretary of State looked at the costs of the Ebbsfleet extension and the extension from Maidenhead to Reading? If there is no groundwork, there is a danger that he is merely raising false expectations.

Alistair Darling: I made it clear in July, and in my speech today, that the Government believe that the Crossrail terminus in the west should be at Maidenhead. The Government were not convinced that Crossrail should go beyond that. All that I undertook to do in July—which is why I am back here today—was accept that many of my hon. Friends wanted the merits of an extension to be discussed. I made it clear today that the procedure would be different.
	The Government have not carried out a detailed costing, because they believe that Crossrail should be fixed at the points that I described earlier. Can I take it from what the hon. Gentleman has said that he believes that Crossrail should now go further than the termini prescribed by the Government?

Chris Grayling: What is completely illogical is that the  Government have selected some of the recommendations that have been made, and have put two possible extensions in writing, but the Committee has not been given the flexibility that would enable it to examine the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar. Either this is to be merely a process of discussion, enabling Members, petitioners and the Committee to discuss their views as much as they wish, or we are limiting our focus to two possible alterations to the scheme. The Secretary of State does not appear to have done any work on the issue, which I find slightly surprising. Why should he not allow my hon. Friend's opinions to be put to the Committee?

Alistair Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman really think it would be wise to truncate Crossrail at Liverpool Street? I am beginning to wonder whether he does not regard Crossrail as a political plaything rather than something that London actually needs.

Chris Grayling: I shall come on to political playthings in a moment. I believe that it is the Secretary of State, rather than me, who regards Crossrail as a political plaything.
	If the Committee is being allowed to consider two possible alternative routes, I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that it cannot discuss fully the views of others.
	On political playthings, what we are engaged in today is simply talk: this is a process that will lead not to action, but to more talk. I say directly to the Secretary of State that this Bill, Crossrail and these motions are set to become just another chapter in the growing volume of Government broken promises on transport. I do not believe that the Government have any intention whatever of seeing this scheme through to fruition. They are leading the people of London and its businesses, and those Members who have thrown their weight behind the scheme, up the garden path.
	We must remember where we started from. In the 10-year plan document, the Government not only promised that the people of London would be travelling under the capital in brand new Crossrail trains by 2010; they also said that they had the cash to pay for the scheme. The document states that,
	"assuming the broad approach set out above, the following could be delivered with this level of investment".
	The bullet point list in that document includes
	"An eastwest rail link, such as CrossRail".
	Of course, that statement is now history and has clearly long since been abandoned. That is why I am so doubtful about the Government's motivation in respect of today's motions and this scheme.
	We now know that the Government's estimate of the scheme's cost is heading rapidly past £15 billion, and that their finances are looking increasingly shaky and under pressure. A comprehensive spending review is just a couple of years away, and all independent expectations are that the Chancellor's spending options are much more limited than in the past few years. Do we honestly believe that from 2008 onward—the year in which the promoters say that they hope construction of the scheme can begin—the Chancellor will start issuing financial guarantees or writing cheques to get Crossrail off the ground? Will the Secretary of State give a clear, categorical public assurance today that the current Government intend to fund the lion's share of the construction of Crossrail, as they once said they would? Can he still make the same commitment that he made in the original 10-year plan document—that the Government would provide the funding to make Crossrail happen? [Interruption.] There is silence from the Government.

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend will recall that at column 1136 in the Hansard account of our 19 July debate, the Secretary of State said that he would postpone consultation on how Crossrail is to be funded until after publication of Sir Michael Lyons' report. Labour Members and I spoke to Sir Michael just before Christmas, and he said that he was rather bemused by what the newspapers had to say about Crossrail. It was pointed out that the funding of such projects has not been referred to Lyons. Does my hon. Friend not think it rather strange that we are waiting for a report that will not in fact deal with Crossrail funding?

Chris Grayling: It is not only strange; even if that report did consider Crossrail funding, it would be somewhat illogical for a report on the future financing of local government suddenly to be extended to include an analysis of the cost of what will be one of Britain's biggest transport projects. My hon. Friend will remember episodes of "Yes, Minister" in which inconvenient decisions were delayed by a useful review. Far be it from me to suggest that that was the Secretary of State's motivation, but I am sure that there are those who will have a similar suspicion.
	I do not believe for a moment that the Government will make a commitment to fund Crossrail any time soon. I do not believe that they will make such a commitment at any stage during this Parliament. The people of Reading and of north Kent will be allowed to make all the representations to the Committee that they want to make about Crossrail's terminus. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar and his constituents may not be allowed to make the same representations, but in fact, this is all talk. Such discussions will not lead to substantial decisions, so in that sense, I can allay his concerns.
	I have no doubt that the Government will encourage members of the Select Committee to consider very carefully new ideas to develop the project. I have no doubt that Ministers will make warm noises in response to those deliberations; they may even put dotted lines on the project team maps to illustrate future options. But I do not believe for one moment that Ministers intend that all this should lead to real action and real new capacity for the travelling public. When the right hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) discusses Merseytram in this House, it becomes clear to me that the Government cannot be trusted to keep their promises on transport. If they cannot afford small projects, it is hard to believe that they can afford big ones.
	We Conservatives, along with constituents and business communities throughout London, will continue to support this Bill and these motions, and we will continue to encourage the project team in the hope that the Government will surprise us and actually deliver this time. But I suspect that the termini in Reading and Ebbsfleet—and, indeed, the whole Crossrail project—are destined under this Government to become just another set of bullet points in the long list of the Government's broken promises on transport.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have little over an hour left for this debate, so I make a plea to all right hon. and hon. Members please to discipline themselves in respect of their speeches.

Nick Raynsford: I start by welcoming the progress that has been made, and the fact that the Bill will now go to the Select Committee next week. Hopefully, that will be an important further stage in its realisation. I do not share the cynicism of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and I sincerely hope that the Government will confirm that this project is going to go ahead, because it has a hugely important role to play in London's transport and, indeed, in the UK economy. It is essential to securing effective cross-London public transport links, to responding to 21st-century needs, and to avoiding the risk of gridlock and the consequent economic disadvantages, which impact adversely not just on London but on the wider UK economy and affect the quality of life of people in the south-east. As Members know, it is a very complex project: a major tunnelling operation through some of the most sensitive sites in the whole of London. It has a number of very complex linkages and relationships with other parts of the transport network, and with other major infrastructure investment projects such the 2012 Olympics, which has already been mentioned.
	Members of the Select Committee have some months of hard work ahead of them in dealing with the many petitions presented and the issues raised. I wish them well, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), and I do so on the basis of my memory of serving on the channel tunnel Committee some 20 years ago. We had not just 350 petitions to deal with, but some 2,000. We dealt with them in approximately six months; I hope that my hon. Friend manages to make quicker progress than that. In that time we also made project recommendations on the channel tunnel, which of course is now in place.
	The petitions that my hon. Friend's Committee will consider include one from the London borough of Greenwich, which has not only my support but that of my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin), who are both in their place today. The main thrust of it is the case for including a station at Woolwich. The case for such a station is very strong; indeed, it was an integral part of the original Crossrail plan. Its exclusion from the latest proposal is the product not of a transport analysis, but of short-term economies that seek to reduce the project's overall cost without proper regard to the long-term transport and regeneration benefits that would flow from such a station.
	Unfortunately, there are some parallels with which I am rather familiar. Both the Jubilee line project and the docklands light railway extension to Lewisham impacted on the London borough of Greenwich, and specifically on my constituency. The proposed stations at North Greenwich and Cutty Sark were at some stage in those schemes excluded for cost reasons. No one would now suggest not having a station at North Greenwich—that would be preposterous, given its huge impact on the regeneration of a formerly abandoned and derelict industrial site, which will now provide homes for some 13,000 people and approximately 3 million sq ft of office accommodation. That will be a hugely important development in the regeneration of south-east London. Nor would anyone now suggest not having a station at Cutty Sark, which is probably the most significant tourist attraction in the whole of south-east London. Yet, believe it or not, the original project proposals suggested deleting North Greenwich and Cutty Sark stations for economic purposes. That illustrates the folly of making short-term economies, rather than looking at the long-term, potentially huge economic and regeneration benefits that can flow from such important infrastructure and transport schemes.
	The logic applies in just the same way to Woolwich as it does to those two stations, which, I am pleased to say, are now successfully in place and are dealing with large numbers of passengers. In neither case did the inclusion of those stations make the project "unmanageable"—to pick up the word used by the Secretary of State. I hope that my right hon. Friend will recognise that the case for a station at Woolwich is strong in terms of the economic, transport and regeneration benefits, and that it would not make the project in any way unmanageable.
	If such a station were not included, there would be some very perverse consequences. First, Woolwich would be the only town centre on the entire Crossrail network not to have a station. That would be very odd indeed, given the importance of Woolwich to the regeneration of the Thames Gateway area and the large number of jobs and new homes that can be created there, which would be supported by a Crossrail station at Woolwich. Evidence for that has been developed by the consultants EDAW, working for the London borough of Greenwich, and more recently by the Buchanan study, which considered only the economic side and the jobs, not the housing aspect, but which recognised the substantial job creation potential of a station at Woolwich.
	Even more perversely, if the station were not included there would be a huge six-mile gap on the network between Custom House and Abbey Wood, which is the only other station serving south-east London. There would be a new service with considerable benefits for London as a whole, and for east London as well as west London, but with very limited benefits for south-east London—an area of great economic and regeneration potential. I hope that the evidence that we will present to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield and the members of the Select Committee will convince them of the strong case for including Woolwich station in the project.
	As for the motions on the Order Paper, I am happy to support the widening of the Select Committee's remit to consider the arguments for extending the Bill to cover Reading and Ebbsfleet. I shall not comment on the case for Reading; it is not an area with which my constituency has close links. There is, however, an obvious logic in extending the project to Ebbsfleet, to allow direct linkage with the channel tunnel rail link, and it is right that that should be considered. My only comment on that idea is that if an extension to Ebbsfleet finds favour, it would in no way be an alternative to a station at Woolwich, which would serve the western end of the Thames Gateway area.
	I hope that the House will give a fair wind to the three motions under consideration, but above all that it will give a fair wind to the Crossrail project, which is so important both to the long-term economic health of London and to the whole UK economy.

Tom Brake: I welcome this short debate on instructions Nos. 2 and 3 to the Select Committee and the motion on late petitions. I also welcome the Secretary of State's clarification of the petitions; it is perfectly acceptable for him to act as he has done.
	Most Members present for the 19 July Second Reading debate, which also covered the committal and the instructions, would agree that it was not a model of clarity. The responsibility of the Select Committee and the Standing Committees are now much clearer, and I thank the Secretary of State for that. The Select Committee can consider the detail but not the principle. My understanding is that although instruction No. 3 extends the scope of the matters that the Select Committee can consider, it does not, as the Secretary of State made clear, extend that scope enough to cover the principle.
	The Secretary of State's view on the extension to Reading has not changed. He said on Second Reading much the same as he has said now. On 19 July he said:
	"As I said right at the start, the project had to be made manageable and the sums had to stack up, and that is why we chose not to include Reading."—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1135.]
	Presumably at that time the right hon. Gentleman held the same view about Ebbsfleet.
	The Secretary of State has said that he does not want Crossrail to suffer the same fate as its predecessors. I do not have time to run through a full timeline of the action that has been taken on Crossrail since 1989, but the list runs to just over three pages. We are somewhat closer to Crossrail being completed now than we were in 1989, but, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Conservative spokesman, said, in practice we have yet to see a spade go into the ground. There has been a lot of preliminary work, it is true, but there is no real action and no real digging.
	I am still somewhat perplexed that although the Secretary of State has said that the Select Committee can consider petitions about Reading and Ebbsfleet, he has, as the Conservative spokesman also said, made it very clear that in his view the sums do not stack up. Yes, the Select Committee can consider the petitions, but in practice, whatever the petitioners say, the Government are unlikely to take any action on Reading or Ebbsfleet. One wonders what the purpose of hearing the petitions is. It will be satisfying for the petitioners to know that their petitions will be heard, but it will not be so satisfying when they read the Hansard report of today's debate and see that the Secretary of State says that he still does not think that these sums stack up for Reading—or, presumably, for Ebbsfleet.
	The debate is simply about the instructions, so we cannot have a detailed debate about the funding aspects. However, I hoped that the Secretary of State would have dropped something in about those, even if it was just a single sentence saying that the £16 billion was in the bank so that the project could proceed. He did not do that, and he will be aware that in the business community there is a lot of disquiet on that subject.
	No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the article in the Financial Times on 21 July, immediately after the Second Reading, in which, for instance, Michael Snyder, the policy chairman of the Corporation of London, was quoted as saying:
	"There is a moment in time when the business community is up for it and we meet the resistance that everyone fears. We need action, not just rhetoric."
	That was the view of the business community in July. I am not aware of any change in those views, or of that disquiet having disappeared. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), replies to the debate he will be able to confirm that discussions with the business community have taken place, it is now confident that the project will progress, and there is no risk that it will withdraw the £2 billion funding that it has offered as part of the process.
	The Secretary of State has said that Sir Michael Lyons' review will consider this—or at least that the decision about the funding has been put back until the review reports. According to the Lyons website, that review will be complete by December 2006. I assume that there is the possibility of slippage, so we may not see a report before the end of this year. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to say that the idea of there being no decision until the end of this year, at the earliest, is a time scale acceptable to the business community, and there is no risk that it will withdraw its offer of a temporary one-off 3 per cent. increase in the business rate between now and then.
	As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell said, the business community will take into account the decisions that the Secretary of State is now taking on other large transport projects, such as those involving trams. The Mersey tram has been mentioned in the debate, and one could also mention other tram projects, such as those in Leeds, Nottingham and Manchester. All the signals that the business community is receiving are negative rather than positive, and that must be having an impact on the business community in London.
	Instruction No. 2 lists many new scoping requirements that have emerged, presumably in discussions over the summer and more recently. After Parliament went into recess, a document was published explaining in some detail what that instruction covered. I hope that the Minister will comment on whether, in relation to paragraph (1)(a), relating to amendments avoiding the duplication of planning authorities when it comes to assessing diversions, there have been representations from local authorities on that proposal and whether they are content with it. Will he also comment on the fact that there will be an extension of rights of way over land, which will allow third parties to acquire any form of rights of way? I should be particularly interested to hear what legislation on compensation might be applicable. Finally, the instruction says that a number of additional buildings would previously have required consent for alteration or demolition, and will he say whether there is a readily available list of the buildings that will be affected?
	The debate on 19 July and the clarification provided by the Secretary of State on the roles of the Select and Standing Committees notwithstanding, many Members may still question why he has not used the opportunity provided today to confirm that freight services will not be affected by Crossrail and to strengthen the role of the rail regulator to leave nobody in any doubt that Crossrail services will not have priority over others. On 19 July, he said that those were matters of public, not private, interest, and therefore matters to be picked up by the Standing Committee, rather than the Select Committee. Surely, however, in relation to freight, if those services could be squeezed off rail and on to the roads in west London, that would be a matter of the greatest private interest. Our concerns have not gone away in spite of the Secretary of State's reassurances before the summer recess. Perhaps the Minister will use this opportunity to say whether, following discussions with the rail industry, he is now comfortable on freight services and the office of the rail regulator.
	The instructions before us at least confirm that some limited progress is being made on Crossrail, and for that reason we will support them. However, they do not answer the £16 billion question, which will be answered, at the very earliest, at the end of this year when the Lyons report is published. Until that question is answered, we shall continue, in the words of Michael Snyder, to have rhetoric and not action.

Martin Salter: I welcome the revised instructions to the Select Committee, but the process is a bit like pulling teeth. We managed, as a result of a delegation I led from Reading borough council last February, to persuade the then Minister of State for Transport to start safeguarding the route to Reading from Maidenhead. I was grateful for that, and it has the support of all local authorities in the area.
	The case for Reading versus Maidenhead has to be examined. But, as I have said before, Crossrail's publicity guide talks about an opportunity to connect the United Kingdom. I am a fan of Maidenhead, to a point. But we do not connect the UK from Maidenhead. Reading is the second busiest rail terminal in the country outside London. A huge number of businesses in the Thames valley, from Swindon through to Reading and Bracknell, rely on our public transport infrastructure. Indeed, it is one of the reasons they locate in the area, and one of the reasons why we have negative unemployment.
	We need, as part of any eventual—I stress "eventual"—extension to Reading not to miss the opportunity to have a western link to London Heathrow airport. That is one of the things people have petitioned for; indeed, I am one of those petitioners, having organised the largest petition to Parliament on the issue from the western side of London. We need an absolute guarantee that we will end the farce of making business people, commuters, tourists and whoever, if they want to catch a train, as we want to encourage them to do, to London Heathrow—some 25 miles from Reading and just a 25-minute drive, in fact, outside rush hour—go 40 miles to Paddington, passing London Heathrow airport, then changing to the Heathrow Express and coming 20 miles back again. How good for the environment is that? How could we design such a transport system? If Crossrail comes to Reading, the opportunity must not be missed for a western link.
	We have put together a comprehensive petition for Reading to be the western terminus. That has involved the Evening Post, Reading borough council, me and the business community. I am delighted that it has cross-party support, and the hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) is also a petitioner and fully supportive of that approach.
	The people representing Maidenhead themselves reject the argument that Maidenhead is the logical western terminus. We have had petitions from the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and the Maidenhead civic society. Many of the steps necessary to make a Reading extension viable also apply to Maidenhead.
	Any western extension must meet certain criteria. There must be scope for a western link to Heathrow, and that is not in the plans at the moment. Most importantly, there must be no detrimental effect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) and others from further west have said, to existing high-speed services into London Paddington. That is crucial to the economies of Swindon, Bristol and elsewhere. From Reading, the second busiest rail interchange outside London, there is a high-speed service into London—if one can get a seat—every eight to 10 minutes at peak time. It is a 29-minute service. Who would want that disrupted by a metro stopping service running ahead of it, possibly using some of the same track? The argument is very complicated.

Robert Wilson: As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there is cross-party agreement across Reading about the concept of Crossrail, but will he join me in opposing a metro stopping service that reduces space for commuter trains and reduces freight?

Martin Salter: The last time I joined the hon. Member for Reading, East was when I was suing him, so I am happy to repeat the conversation that he and I had on the train last night. We regularly commute back to Reading and regularly witness the nonsense of the case that Crossrail would not, on the existing four-track system, impede the high-speed service. How many times does that service from the west country have to run on the slow line, the same line that Crossrail would use? In a rather unkind way, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if Crossrail is to come not just to Reading but to Maidenhead, there will have to be six-tracking, which is why the Secretary of State is absolutely right to be concerned about additional costs. Yes, there must be no negative impact on the existing freight network, and Crossrail could have an impact on that unless there is six-tracking to Reading, and possibly beyond. We also need the re-signalling already in Network Rail's programme, although we do not know when it will occur. And we need—this applies only to Reading, not Maidenhead—the multi-million pound, long-overdue redevelopment of Reading station. Reading's case must be considered, but it is not a simple one and it will have an impact on almost every other terminus in the western corridor.

Doug Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for making so clearly the case that I have pressed on the Secretary of State on a number of occasions. It is almost impossible, and experts have analysed it, to envisage the current rail service to Reading and on to Bristol, the south-west and south Wales carrying on as it does. At the moment, at peak times, there is a 15-minute service from the two Bristol stations into London—unfortunately, it has one of the highest fares in the country, which is a different argument—and it is almost impossible to envisage that carrying on with only four tracks between Bristol and London.

Martin Salter: I very much concur with my hon. Friend. Whatever the question is, the answer is not Maidenhead, for all the reasons that I have outlined. Even Reading will require significant additional investment, and that is why the motion must be approved. The case for Reading must be examined properly and in detail by the Select Committee, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will ensure that that happens.
	This motion is good news, as it represents a significant departure from the Government's position outlined in the debate on 19 July. I was not happy with some of the assurances that I received then, which is why I abstained in the vote. I am pleased that there will be proper consideration, but a line must be drawn, and I hope that the Minister will do that when he replies to the debate.
	As I said in an intervention, in the past the use of the Transport and Works Act 1992 has resulted in the petitioners being regarded as the applicant. If there is to be an extension beyond Paddington or Ealing Broadway to Reading and Maidenhead, it is vital that the applicant is either Crossrail or Network Rail, as it would be monstrously unfair to lay the burden on the petitioners, the local authorities or local businesses.
	I remind the Secretary of State of his reply to me on 19 July, when he said that the project must be kept manageable. That is true, as we must avoid the disaster that took place under the previous Government. I regret that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), the Opposition spokesman, tried to make party political points, but I shall make one in return: letting the Crossrail project run into the sand in 1989 was a disaster. Constituencies to the west of London need Crossrail even more than Reading does, and I do not want the case for an extension to Reading or anywhere else to limit the chances of my colleagues representing those areas.
	I want to offer three conclusions to the House. First, the case for Reading rather than Maidenhead must be heard, and I am pleased that that is going to happen. Secondly, any application under the Transport and Works Act 1992 must be made by the Government, Network Rail or Crossrail, and not by the petitioners themselves.
	My third point is the most important, and has to do with the proper assessment of the likely costs. I have no doubt that, following examination of the relevant factors— such as the western terminus and all the others that I outlined earlier—the Select Committee will conclude that the scheme will have to be phased. A workable and achievable Crossrail phase 1 could deliver for communities around London a properly costed scheme to provide rail access to Reading and other places to the west at a later stage. That would be preferable to a fudge or an imperfect scheme that would be neither fish nor fowl.
	By all means let us vote for the motion, and ensure that the case is examined properly, but let us also ensure that Crossrail can deliver the maximum benefit in the shortest possible time. The people who rely on the scheme and on Crossrail have waited long enough.

Andrew Rosindell: The Secretary of State will know that I have spoken on this matter several times, and that the project will have a devastating effect on part of my constituency. There is much concern that answers have not been given about the effect on people's lives and properties, and that the long term is not clear. The Government have a duty to clarify matters and to give firm commitments, so that people know exactly where things are going.
	Today's debate has given prominence to discussions about Reading and Maidenhead. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised concerns about Shenfield, but I hope that the Secretary of State will also look at issues that I have raised in the past in connection with Romford. Given the lack of time, however, I shall be brief, and confine myself to a couple of specific points.
	First, the Secretary of State will know that many of the powers proposed in the motion are deeply worrying to me and my constituents. Paragraph (m) provides for
	"the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used".
	That poses more questions than answers. That is a great pity, as we are far enough along with the Bill to have more answers than questions. I hope that the Minister winding up the debate will say more about the provision, which clearly implies that new land will be needed for the revised plans.
	When will my constituents in Romford know the Government's final plans for the Crossrail depot in the centre of the town? Many people there fear that they will undergo more suffering as a result of the Government's decision to build what they are sure will be a monstrosity in a densely residential and highly populated area. I am especially worried by the further plans for the Romford depot and surrounding areas that are contained in the supplementary environmental statement.
	Secondly, the Secretary of State made a written statement on 13 December. I hope that the Minister will say whether the £100 million that the right hon. Gentleman has made available for Crossrail's further development is less than what Cross London Rail Links asked for. Alternatively, does Crossrail have a blank cheque for as much development as it wants?
	Those and other concerns must be addressed. The Secretary of State must realise that the lives of many people, in my constituency and across the east end of London, are being torn apart by the proposals. No one doubts that Crossrail will bring some benefits, but he must accept that the mechanisms have to be right. Moreover, he has to understand the impact that the proposals are having on people in my area, even as we sit in the House and debate them.

John Austin: I think that all hon. Members agree about Crossrail's social, economic and environmental importance. I support two of the petitioners, and wish to make it clear that I do not want anything to delay the scheme's progress.
	There has been cross-party consensus about the importance of the Thames Gateway. It is not merely the passion of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister: when Lord Heseltine and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) were the responsible Ministers, they too recognised the importance of the area's regeneration to the country's economy. The progress being made with the Crossrail scheme gives us an opportunity to ensure that that regeneration comes about. I hope that the minor differences about the scheme that exist do not detract from that vision.
	The Thames Gateway is crucial to this country's economy, and will make a vital contribution to providing the 200,000 additional homes that the south-east needs. London alone needs 45,000 new homes a year and lack of supply is driving up prices. The impact on affordability results in chronic problems of recruitment and retention for businesses and the public sector, and Crossrail is crucial to addressing those issues. Of the four growth areas designated in the sustainable communities plan, the Thames Gateway, with 3,000 hectares of brownfield sites, is well placed to provide the 120,000 homes and 300,000 new jobs envisaged in the plan.
	The bulk of the development will take place on the original Crossrail route between central London and Ebbsfleet, including the Isle of Dogs zone, the east London area—including the Royals and Stratford—the Woolwich, Belvedere and Erith zone and the Kent Thamesside zone. Those four zones are to provide 70,000 new homes and 252,000 new jobs. Up to half that total could be attracted or generated by the Crossrail link.
	In the present plans, the line stops at Abbey Wood. The debate has seemed at times to be like a London black cab—"Not south of the river, guv." I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) has pointed out that the current plan contains only one station south of the river—Abbey Wood in my constituency. A terminal and an interchange with the north Kent line at Abbey Wood will be of crucial importance and benefit to my constituents in Abbey Wood and Thamesmead. There will be some short-term problems, including congestion, especially if the Thames Gateway bridge is built. But without the extension to Ebbsfleet, the Belvedere, Erith and Kent Thamesside zones will not benefit from the scheme.
	Similarly, Woolwich will not get the full benefits unless a station is provided at Woolwich. My right hon. Friend today, and my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) in a debate on 20 October 2005, made the case for a station at Woolwich, which is a transport hub, especially for the south of Greenwich, an area that my hon. Friend represents. Not to have a station there, with Crossrail going through, or under, the town, makes no sense. Nor does it make any sense in terms of the vision for the development of the Royal Arsenal site.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) made some comments about money coming to London, but I remind him that a lot of money has been spent on the west coast main line, which he is probably on at this very moment, winging his way back to Knowsley. Despite the affluence of the south-east, parts of London, including the south-east and east, have some of the most chronically deprived areas in the country. The Woolwich Arsenal site, which used to be in my constituency but is now in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich, once employed 80,000 people and, over a 50-year period, lost the equivalent of a coal mine and a coal-mining village a year—the largest job loss anywhere in the country. That is why Crossrail is crucial to the regeneration of the area.
	Of the 416 hectares of prime employment land in Bexley, 92 per cent. lies in the north of the borough. In Belvedere alone, there are 229 hectares, with 30 per cent. available for development, and there are a further 50 hectares in Erith—along the line of the original proposed Crossrail route to Ebbsfleet. In the past 10 years or so, half of the new homes in Bexley have been in the five northerly wards on the original route. The largest housing site in Bexley is the old Erith quarry, a couple of minutes' walk from Erith station. Land is available in Erith for the potential development of 3,000 new homes, more than 90 per cent. of which are within walking distance of Erith or Slade Green stations.
	That part of south-east London and north-west Kent has a real problem with reliance on car-borne traffic. A Crossrail link from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet, serving Belvedere, Erith, Slade Green and Dartford, would be a crucial element in achieving the goals of the Thames Gateway. It has been said that there would be a rapid interchange at Abbey Wood, with only a five-minute delay, but any delay at any change—as any transport analysis shows—is a significant disadvantage when competing with strong car use.
	It has also been suggested that Ebbsfleet, a major job creation centre, will have a direct link to central London through the Channel tunnel rail link, but that will fail to connect the key residential and employment sites in the southern section of the Thames Gateway and will fail to give my constituents access to the employment opportunities there. I am aware that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, the decision to terminate at Abbey Wood was taken on technical grounds—I understand them to involve track sharing—but no explanation or justification has been given of why that cannot be overcome in the first phase of development as opposed to the later phases. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) will take those issues into consideration in the Committee.
	Nothing that any of the petitioners have put forward should delay the Bill's progress. I am convinced that the Government are determined to see it through and to realise the vision that we have for the south-east.

Eric Pickles: I want to be absolutely clear that when the Bill was published and I took legal advice from the Clerks and others concerned with parliamentary procedure, the explanation that the Secretary of State gave today about the importance of the principle was something that I understood to be an established fact. I understand the difficulty of amending the long title of a Bill. There appear in the long title the words
	"through central London to Shenfield".
	I was concerned that my constituents would not get an opportunity to petition, but I was told that that was wrong.
	I was completely amazed by what the Secretary of State said on Second Reading: that, no, the Select Committee would have the opportunity to consider whether Shenfield should be a terminus. The Secretary of State went further by differentiating between the principle and the route. In column 1125 in the Official Report of 19 July he said:
	"Our instruction goes further, in that it suggests the route. I repeat, however, that if someone came along and said that the stations or the termini should be different, the Select Committee may well want to consider that."—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1125.]
	We have to remember that, with the exception of the late petitioners, the only reason the instruction is here today is that the Secretary of State was wrong in his understanding of the law. This new instruction is there to make good his promises, except for one regarding Shenfield.
	The Secretary of State said, "I thought you were referring to Liverpool Street station. I said what I did because I thought you wanted a terminus there." Well, so what? Would it matter whether I had suggested Liverpool Street, Stratford or Timbuktu? What I asked the Secretary of State was whether my constituents could petition the Select Committee about having the terminus at Shenfield, and whether the Select Committee could make a recommendation. The answer to both those questions was yes. Frankly, it is reneging on both those promises now to say that those matters should not be considered.
	Let me be absolutely clear. All I want is the opportunity for my constituents to make a case for the terminus not to come to Shenfield. All I ask is that that is considered—not just politely listened to, but considered by the Select Committee. All I want is for the Select Committee to make a recommendation to the Government. It may be that the Committee decides not to make a recommendation about Shenfield. I am a democrat; I can accept that. What I cannot accept is that when a promise has been made at the Dispatch Box by a Secretary of State for Transport, a few months later he can renege on it and say that we were at cross-purposes.
	Members have an opportunity to read Hansard. They can see the ordinary interpretation of the words used and the context in which the question was asked. I firmly believe that this is a matter of principle. I have always taken the Secretary of State at his word. I have never questioned his word or his honour in the many times I have been opposite him at the Dispatch Box. My constituents have been very badly let down. They have been asked to take part in a strange parliamentary pantomime, in which they can petition, and be politely listened to, but no matter how strong their case, no recommendation can be made. That bring politics into disrepute; it brings this place into disrepute; and it falls very badly on the shoulders of the Secretary of State.

Clive Efford: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a contribution to the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) have already outlined the issues relating to south London, and I am particularly pleased to see that under the motions on the Order Paper we are going to consider the Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet extension.
	My constituency sits at the confluence of the south circular, the A102 approach road to the Blackwall tunnel, the A2 and the A20. Without those important improvements in our public transport network along the   south-east of the Thames, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead said, the development of that area of the Thames Gateway and the new housing and jobs that it will generate will be affected and many more people will end up in traffic jams somewhere in my constituency as they travel to and from London. Our road network is already congested, especially at peak times, so improvements in the public transport network are essential and I am pleased that they are being considered.
	Crossrail will give us 40 per cent. of the additional transport capacity that we need in central London and, like others, I do not want that part of the development to fall as a result of the additional schemes that people are requesting. I draw the attention of Select Committee members to the fact that, historically, south-east London has suffered enormously from lack of investment in its public transport infrastructure. When people talk about the London underground, they often think that it covers the whole of London. Indeed, the criticism can be levelled at the Mayor of London that he sometimes talks as though the whole of London is served by the underground, but south-east London is not. An arc around the Thames all the way to Lambeth—almost a quarter of the whole of London—is not served by the London underground. That is why it is essential that we make the most of schemes such as Crossrail. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich pointed out that a six-mile stretch from Custom House to Abbey Wood, the cost of which will be in the hundreds of millions, will have no station, bypassing one of the most strategic transport hubs in south-east London. That makes no sense. On a cost-benefit basis alone, it must make sense to consider that development.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead pointed out some of the historical facts about Woolwich; for example, the loss of jobs that we have suffered over the last 50 years. On figures for 2000, 25 of the top 20 per cent. most deprived wards in the country were in the London borough of Greenwich and, according to the 2004 figures, it is the 23rd most deprived local authority area. The development of Woolwich is essential not only for regeneration but as a strategic hub for our part of south-east London. It makes no sense to build a six-mile railway with no station, especially when it bypasses such a major town centre as Woolwich. I urge the Select Committee to take that on board.

Robert Wilson: My brief comments will be about Crossrail and Reading station, which is in my constituency. As I have said many times before, nobody doubts that the construction of an east-west rail link in London will have powerful economic advantages and benefits for London, so in that regard I strongly support Crossrail and certainly do not want to stand in the way of its progress.
	However, Crossrail's significance for us to the west of London much depends on what we get from it. If Crossrail were to contribute to unplugging the bottlenecks on the national rail network through much-needed funding for Reading station, I should support it. If it were to bring more fast and semi-fast commuter services to London, I should support and welcome it. If it were to provide a link to Heathrow, as the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) said, I should welcome it. That is the type of Crossrail that I should like to see terminating in Reading, East.
	However, that does not seem to be the proposal that we shall actually get. It looks as though it will be a metro service that stops at every little station between Reading and London, which means that there will be fewer fast and semi-fast commuter services than at present. Such a metro service will force freight on to the roads. It will not have a link to Europe's most important airport. The scheme will be expensive but will add nothing positive to the transport infrastructure in the west of London; it will reduce capacity in the infrastructure rather than positively benefit it.
	Crossrail could be fantastic for Reading, but we do not want it at any cost. I hope that the Secretary of State hears that loud and clear.

Stephen Hammond: The motions attempt to clear up the confusion surrounding the instruction as initially set out by the Government and, indeed, the confusion of the debate on Second Reading, for it is clear that the instruction to the Select Committee that was set out during that debate had a twofold effect. First, the Select Committee had to interpret the principle of the Bill, so it could not accept petitions that did not deal with that principle. Secondly, the Select Committee could consider only those matters prescribed by the instruction. It could not consider any matter of its choice, despite the confusion of the debate on Second Reading and the Government's belief that the Select Committee could do so.
	The motions will have two practical results. First, they will clear up the confusion, clarify the Select Committee's remit and extend the instruction. In practical terms, as we have heard during much of the debate this afternoon, the Select Committee will now be able to examine the proposals to extend Crossrail to both the east and the west, which the instruction as set out on Second Reading would not have allowed it to do. Secondly, as a result of another of the motions, the Select Committee will be able to consider a number of possibly essential engineering changes—frankly, all of which might have been anticipated and incorporated into the original Bill.
	The motions have a number of important and as yet unresolved implications, however, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify them in his remarks in a few minutes. First, what is the cost of the works as designated by the motions? Even though, as the Secretary of State said earlier, the Government do not necessarily wish those works to be undertaken, I am sure that they have a view on the costs. I should be surprised if they did not have a view on them before introducing the motions today.
	Secondly, if the items in the motions are to become part of the Crossrail project after the Select Committee has considered them, is it right that they cannot be initially added to the Bill? Will they require separate orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992? The Government have been considering Crossrail for long enough now, and this is an untidy and cumbersome method of adding to the Bill some very important considerations for Crossrail.
	We are dealing with motions that relate to items that either the Government need to clear up or have been identified post the debate of 19 July. What happens if other engineering works and other items emerge? Will the Minister clarify exactly how the Government propose to deal with them? Will another stream of motions be put before the House?
	Importantly, the motions do not clarify a number of other unresolved issues: Crossrail's impact on other services, such as freight; the interaction with other networks; the governance of the network; the regulatory regime associated with Crossrail; and the power of the Office of Rail Regulation. Most importantly, the motions give no flavour to Crossrail's funding. The House will give effect to motions to pursue the biggest civil engineering project in Europe without any regard to its financing. Exactly by whom and how will that be financed? When do the Government propose to tell us the details of how it will be financed?
	The Secretary of State said earlier—I am sure that the Minister will say so, as well—that the Government have asked Sir Michael Lyons to look at the funding of the project. That has attracted comment. However, that may well be their position, but it is far from clear whether a review that looks at the funding of large-scale national infrastructure projects should be conducted without considering local government funding. So we are left with the suspicion that the referral to Lyons is nothing more than putting the project out into the long grass, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said earlier.
	In conclusion, I shall ask my colleagues to support the motions—I want to reaffirm the Conservative party's commitment to the principle of Crossrail—but there should be no more delays and procrastination from the Government. When will we hear the full details of Crossrail's funding? I trust that we will do so in time for the debate on Third Reading.

Derek Twigg: I welcome the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) to his new post and the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) to his first Front-Bench position.
	I am grateful to hon. Members for a valuable debate on the instructions to the Select Committee dealing with the Crossrail Bill. I am pleased that there is such widespread support for the Bill. The Committee process will be an important part of ensuring that we deliver Crossrail, to which our commitment is clear and firm. A great deal of work has been done to ensure that it is delivered as soon as possible.
	Unfortunately, I do not have time to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate, but I shall do my best to respond briefly to some of them. Of course, the issues raised by hon. Members will be the subject of further and detailed consideration by the Select Committee, and matters to do with the details of the project will be the subject of thorough interrogation. The additional measures that the Government propose to introduce will also be subject to that rigorous process. If the House passes the instructions, the Committee will be able to consider other matters that are causing great concern but that would otherwise have been outside its remit.
	Many hon. Members spoke in this excellent debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) stated his strong support for the Bill, highlighting the economic benefits of Crossrail to London and to the country as a whole. He strongly favours a station at Woolwich—he has made that case before—and the Select Committee will hear petitions on the subject.
	The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) raised a variety of issues. I can only respond briefly to a couple of them today. All the material relating to the additional provisions will be published next week and local authorities will be able to petition the Select Committee, which will then consider the details. He raised the important subject of Crossrail's effect on rail freight. I chair the Crossrail high-level forum, which brings together interested parties such as local government and rail industry representatives. We have set up a sub-group on rail, and all the rail interests attend its meetings. We have also set up a working group on the timetable and on access options, which involves rail freight interests, and we are working together to get the best possible solution. It is not the case that there will be a reduction in freight.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter) made a strong argument on behalf of his constituency, emphasising Reading's importance as a rail terminal. He made a strong case for Reading and I note that he welcomed the Government's instruction in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke about the impact of Crossrail as strongly he did on Second Reading. Discussions are ongoing with the local authority and other bodies about some of the issues that he raised here today.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) said that we have an opportunity to ensure that the dream of Crossrail is realised. He spoke about its importance to the Thames Gateway, referring to its economic benefits and the need for jobs and development and for the removal of any constraints on that. He also spoke about the project's wider significance to London and the country as a whole.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made important points on the need to improve public transport. He also highlighted Crossrail's importance to his constituency and London in terms of regeneration and job creation. He spoke about the job losses that have occurred in his part of London over the past couple of decades and recognised the opportunity that now exists. He, too, made the case for Woolwich.
	The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) raised a number of issues. I can only refer him to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told him during his opening remarks. The Select Committee will sit for the first time next week under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). It will discuss matters of detail, and it will have an opportunity to examine many of the issues raised by hon. Members, petitioners and others. Instructions before the House provide important clarification for the Committee, and will further facilitate its proceedings. The Committee will be a crucial next step in the Bill's progress towards the realisation of Crossrail, and I commend the motions to the House.

Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 390, Noes 0.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed—
	(1) that it have power to consider—
	  (a) the extension of permitted development under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 in relation to development which is the subject of environmental assessment in connection with the Bill;
	  (b) additional power to carry out works for the purpose of reinstating facilities whose operation or use is discontinued because of the exercise of powers conferred by the Bill;
	  (c) provision relating to the abstraction of water;
	  (d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by the Bill which consists of a work other than a scheduled work;
	  (e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the application of provisions of the Bill to things authorised by an order under section 1 of the Transport and Works Act 1992;
	  (f) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding any of the following—
	(i) a crossover at Farringdon;
	(ii) sidings at Westbourne Park;
	(iii) diversion of the Moorgate Station Sewer;
	(iv) a jetty and conveyor at West India Docks South;
	(v) use of the River Lea for barge loading and holding areas;
	(vi) realignment of the Docklands Light Railway at Custom House;
	(vii) facilities for handling excavated materials at Manor Wharf;
	(viii) a shaft at Eleanor Street;
	(ix) diversion of the Hackney to Abbey Mills Sewer and the Wick Lane Sewer;
	(x) a bridge over Hollow Hill Lane, Langley;
	  (g) realignment of the proposed running tunnel beneath Shorts Gardens, Camden;
	  (h) alterations to a ticket hall at the proposed Whitechapel Station;
	  (i) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding approval in relation to highway accesses;
	  (j) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the acquisition of land at Basin Approach, Lowell Street and land at Billingsgate Market;
	  (k) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the creation and acquisition of easements or other rights over land;
	  (l) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 8 to the Bill (disapplication and modification of heritage controls), so far as relating to the City of Westminster, the City of London and the London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
	  (m) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used;
	and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;
	(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed is empowered to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if—
	  (a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and
	  (b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

CROSSRAIL BILL [INSTRUCTION] (NO. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December 2005],
	That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed that, where a Petition against the Bill which stands referred to the Select Committee raises an issue regarding extension of the railway transport system for which the Bill provides—
	  (a) from Maidenhead to Reading, or
	  (b) from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet,
	it may, if it thinks it appropriate to do so, hear the Petitioner and the Member in charge of the Bill on that issue for the purpose of reporting to the House whether there appears to be a case for such extension being the subject of an application for an order under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
	That where the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed decides under this instruction to hear the Petitioner and the Member in charge of the Bill on an issue, the Petitioner shall be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [Mr. Roy.]
	Question agreed to.

CROSSRAIL BILL [LATE PETITIONS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December 2005],
	That paragraph (a) of the Order of 19th July 2005 about the Petitions which are to stand referred to the Select Committee (which requires a Petition to have been deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than 16th September 2005) be suspended in the case of the Petitions of the following—
	Mr Ayub Ahmed Goga,
	Mr A. Hamid,
	Mr U. Natta,
	Mr Yakub Natta,
	Mr Ishak Patel,
	Mr Mehmud Patel, and
	Mr John Payne.
	That those Petitions stand referred to the Select Committee.
	That those Petitions be treated as ones in relation to which the Order of 19th July about the entering of appearances on Petitions has effect.
	That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.— [Mr. Roy.]
	Question agreed to.

Security of Supply

[Relevant documents: The Twelfth Report of last Session from the Trade and Industry Committee on Fuel Prices (HC279) and the Government's response thereto, and the First Report of this Session from the Trade and Industry Committee on Security of Gas Supply (HC632–I).]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A notice about the relevant documents should have appeared in the Order Paper. Copies of all three documents are available in the Vote Office.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Roy.]

Alan Johnson: The debate supplements the first report to Parliament on United Kingdom security of gas and electricity supplies that was laid in July 2005. In the 2003 Energy White Paper, we set the objectives of secure, sustainable, affordable energy for all in a competitive, transparent energy market.
	Overall, Britain is in a strong position. We have a broad range of energy supply and a balanced mix of electricity generation. Around 19 per cent. of our electricity comes from nuclear, 33 per cent. from coal, 40 per cent. from gas and 4 per cent. from renewables. Although the proportion from renewables is small, it has almost doubled in the past four years, and is today sufficient to supply more than 2 million households. On gas infrastructure, the market is planning to deliver some £10 billion of investment in gas import and storage projects between 2005 and 2010.
	The UK has enjoyed some of the lowest energy prices in Europe for more than a decade. Even after the recent price increases, our domestic gas remains the cheapest in Europe. According to Ofgem, domestic energy bills are £140 less than they were in 1990.
	Our liberalised markets mean that the cost of industrial gas is also competitive. In the past 14 years, the cost of energy to British industry has been around £8 billion less than the cost to German industry. However, there are problems and challenges ahead that we have to acknowledge and resolve.
	First, we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Despite recent increases, we are still on track to achieving our target under the Kyoto protocol. However, there is much more to do if we are to meet our aim of a 60 per cent. reduction by 2050.
	Secondly, our energy reserves are in decline. North sea production has declined more quickly than predicted. Britain has already moved from being a net exporter to a net importer of gas, and soon we will become a net importer of energy overall, in common with most other developed nations.

Bernard Jenkin: We keep hearing the mantra that gas production in the North sea has declined more quickly than predicted but I have yet to meet anyone in the industry who agrees with that analysis. Centrica, which owns the Morecambe bay field and is meant to be the culprit, has clearly said that production has reached a plateau and is declining according to expectations. There has been at least a communications failure between the Government and the industry, or perhaps the Government have not been told the truth, but it is not good enough to keep telling us that gas supplies have declined more quickly than anticipated because that is not true.

Alan Johnson: Strangely enough, that is a question that I have asked myself, because I have been trotting out that line since last summer, and I decided that, in view of this important debate, I ought to look a bit more closely into the matter. I am not sure about Centrica, because it is not involved in the North sea, but I found that every credible analysis published said that North sea gas would decline, and that we would move from being a net exporter to a net importer between 2005 and 2007. Wood Mackenzie, in its August 2001 multi-client report entitled "Running Short of Gas: The Outlook for UK and Irish Gas Markets"—which, I am told, is very authoritative—said:
	"It is probable that the UK will become a net importer of gas in either 2005 or 2006."
	Others put it at between 2006 and 2007. On Tuesday, I was with a number of energy suppliers, who themselves admitted that this was the case. I do not know of anyone who did not have a misconception of how quickly North sea gas would be reduced. However, the hon. Gentleman has asked a valid question, and I asked it myself because I wanted to explore it at that level of analysis.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Secretary of State mentioned renewable energy. I believe that the renewable energy target set for us by the European Union is 2 per cent. by 2012. Does he think that we will meet that target?

Alan Johnson: Our target is 10 per cent. by 2010. We have an aspiration to move to 15 per cent. by 2015, and to 20 per cent. by 2020. All of that is on the route to a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is leading on this, and will publish the climate change review programme shortly. That will show what we need to do to get back on track. We are undoubtedly not as far forward as we need to be, although we have made some very good progress. That report will be published in the very near future.

Michael Weir: May I take the Secretary of State back to the question of the gas supply? Is he aware of the research by Professor Alex Kemp of Aberdeen university that discloses that there are up to 20 finds to the west of Shetland that have not yet been developed? Most of them are fairly marginal, but the changes in the tax regime introduced by the Chancellor have meant that they will become even more marginal. Is that sensible when we are apparently relying on gas from faraway countries in central Asia? Will the Secretary of State consider introducing incentives to assist the development of these marginal fields?

Alan Johnson: We have issued more licences in the past year than ever before—a record number. In regard to the tax regime, all Governments have to strike the right balance between the amount of tax relief that they give to companies exploiting this natural resource and the interests of the country in which it is found. The Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report that the tax regime should change, but he also gave a guarantee that there would be no further changes during this Parliament.

Robert Smith: The unfortunate thing about that reassurance from the Chancellor is that it contradicts his reason for imposing the increase. He claims that that reason is the high price of oil, yet he says that if the oil price were to go down or to collapse, he would not take the tax away. Clearly, therefore, the tax is linked not to the high price of oil but to his need to get money at short notice.

Alan Johnson: If the oil price were to collapse, we would then face a very different set of problems from those that we are facing now.

Bernard Jenkin: Gas production in the UK is effectively taxed at a rate of 75 per cent., which is one of the highest tax rates in the world. The increase in tax on North sea oil is simply not in the long-term national interest.

Alan Johnson: The Chancellor pointed out in his pre-Budget report the corresponding taxes on exploration in the United States and other parts of the world, and his proposals are consistent with those. However, we shall return to that issue at the time of the Budget.
	The first of the challenges and problems that we face relates to renewables, and the second is the fact that our energy reserves are in decline, as I mentioned earlier. The third is that prices have been rising. We all have to face the fact that the days of cheap energy have gone, probably for ever. World prices for fossil fuels have increased by a half over the past three years, and oil prices have reached record highs. This in turn has had a direct impact on gas prices. Those global effects have been compounded by the decline in North sea production and market nervousness about a tight gas supply situation in a winter predicted to be colder than usual.
	Fourthly, our nuclear reactors, which currently supply a fifth of our energy, will all be decommissioned by 2035, and most of them will be out of service by 2025. Decisions need to be taken on whether we need a new generation of nuclear power stations, or whether we are content to see nuclear disappear from our energy mix.

Tobias Ellwood: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that had the EU sorted out a proper gas market two or three years ago, we would not be affected by such high gas prices now? As France and Germany own much of the infrastructure, they can subsidise their gas prices and pass those prices on to the UK domestic market.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I will deal with that during my speech.

David Drew: On nuclear, even at this late stage, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the decision to sell Westinghouse, given that if this country is to have a nuclear future, we must have the means to bring forward the technology and expertise? Westinghouse was one way of providing that, and surely it is a travesty that we are pushing ahead with the sale at this time.

Alan Johnson: I thought long and hard about this issue, as did my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy. In effect, keeping Westinghouse in British ownership would inhibit our ability with regard to future nuclear new build. If the UK were to go down that route—that is a big "if"—it would be difficult for companies to find an objective view from a publicly-owned Westinghouse. In addition, in relation to developments in China, where Westinghouse is involved in building four nuclear power stations, there is a large degree of risk involved, and the British taxpayer should not be involved in meeting that risk. For that and other reasons, although it is an important issue that we considered long and hard, I think that the sale of Westinghouse is the right road to go down.

Joan Ruddock: I know how scrupulous my right hon. Friend is in other presentations, and I am sure that his remark that nuclear contributes one fifth of our energy was a slip of the tongue. I think that he might have meant to refer to our electricity generating capacity. In terms of primary energy, of course, nuclear contributes around 7 per cent.

Alan Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting that, on the record, in Hansard.

Dennis Skinner: The Secretary of State paints a long-term picture of diminishing oil and gas, problems with nuclear and so on. Will he address the imminent and important question of the 33 per cent. of our energy that we get from coal, much of it imported? A number of mines are left in Britain, one of which is Haworth, which employs 288 men and will be closed within weeks, not years, if money is not allocated to it to save those jobs. I ask him to get on with it and get the decision made. I see that the Minister for Energy is whispering to him, and I hope that he has said that he will pay the money shortly. Is that correct?

Alan Johnson: Not entirely correct. My hon. Friend the Minister for Energy was saying to me that we are aware of the issue, we are due to respond soon to the company's request, and we will do so. As for making progress on the five issues, I will do so if I can stop taking interventions and get on to some of the good news.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made a strong point about Haworth colliery, whose work force is listening closely to the debate. The Minister for Energy said in an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall yesterday:
	"We are considering the proposal on Haworth colliery and I will respond to the company in the very near future."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 11 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 97WH.]
	The clock is ticking, and we need a decision before the end of January. If we are to have an indigenous coal industry, we need a positive decision.

Alan Johnson: Those two interventions have achieved their purpose. We recognise the need to move swiftly, and we are even more determined to move swiftly than we were before we started the debate.
	The fifth problem or challenge that we face is rapid change in the geopolitical climate. Rapid economic growth in countries such as India and China is placing huge demand on world markets. China is already the world's second largest consumer of energy. The international dimension of those problems was highlighted over the new year, during the dispute between Russia and Ukraine over gas supplies. That dispute has reminded us all of the need for diverse energy supplies, which applies both to what energy we source and to where it comes from. A vital challenge for the G8 this year will be to ensure that when supplies are scarce, the scarcity does not lead to conflict as it might have in the past but is resolved through diplomatic channels.

Joan Walley: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a difference between scarcity of supply and gas price speculation? Intensive gas users are finding that the market itself is causing price increases. Gas can be sold as many as 27 times before it is used.

Alan Johnson: I shall come to that shortly, but it is the spot market that is causing a problem. I know from recent discussions with energy producers that in this country we are far more inclined to buy from the spot market than to contract on the futures market. Perhaps that sends a message to companies.

John Hemming: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties with the market is that the vast majority of demand, and variability in demand, relates to fixed prices? As the spot market covers only a small part of the overall market, changes tend to be exacerbated.

Alan Johnson: We should see the position in proportion. The problems are really affecting intensive energy users. The situation is caused by the market, and the market will find a way of resolving the issues. However, for the purposes of this winter and, I would suggest, next winter, we must concentrate on how to facilitate our transition from being a net exporter of energy to being a net importer.
	It is against the backdrop of those five challenges and problems that we will conduct our review of energy policy.

Eric Martlew: I believe that there is a sixth dimension. Only a year ago, my constituency experienced the worst flooding in the United Kingdom. Electricity was cut off in 150,000 properties for three days because of substation flooding. The substation involved has now been proofed, but according to United Utilities there are nine more substations—large ones—in the north-west which are much more likely to be flooded than the one in my constituency. As global warming advances, there is an immediate danger to electricity supplies throughout the country. Many substations were built near rivers because they needed the water for cooling purposes. Will the Minister look into the problem?

Alan Johnson: I am aware of the problems in Carlisle, and of the enormous efforts made by my hon. Friend, as a constituency Member, to help the town recover. I have described five problems that affect the security of energy supply, which is the title of our debate. My hon. Friend has raised the important issue of electricity generation, which will be covered by the review to which I shall refer shortly. It can also legitimately deal with the safety of substations in the context of environmental damage such as that experienced in Carlisle.

Andrew Miller: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Alan Johnson: I will give way one last time.

Andrew Miller: The point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) is important in the a geopolitical context. Climate change will clearly be a big driver in the energy debate. Is it not important for Britain to maintain its pre-eminence on the nuclear side, so that we can promote our standards of safety and control in that industry elsewhere in the world?

Alan Johnson: My hon. Friend brings me to the next part of my speech, which is about the energy review. As I have emphasised before, this is a review with no pre-determined outcome. It embraces all sources of energy; it is not a review of nuclear energy alone. On 23 January, we will publish the review consultation document, which, I hope, will draw out the breadth of opinion on these complex issues. Ahead of that review, in today's speech I want to focus on the security of our gas supply, which has understandably been the cause of greatest concern in recent weeks.
	Gas generates around 40 per cent. of the UK's electricity, and approximately 35 per cent. of final UK gas consumption is used in our homes. Because of the decline in North sea production, we knew that this winter was going to be tighter than in the past. Combined with an early cold spell, that caused the problems that we witnessed in November. Gas storage was drawn down earlier than usual and prices rose to historically high levels, despite the fact that there was actually enough gas to meet demand. The price increase meant that many power generators reduced their gas use by switching to other forms of generation, which substantially reduced demand and helped to balance the market. For some major industrial energy users, these abnormally high prices created significant problems.
	Looking back, ahead of the winter we had worked closely with the industry and others to try to ease the effects of high gas prices through the gas prices working group, and through the report on, and seminars on, the forward gas market. Last year, new gas import and storage capacity came on stream, including the new liquefied natural gas terminal at the Isle of Grain, which has received eight shipments since it opened in November. The interconnector doubled its capacity and has been importing at record levels recently. Moreover, new storage capacity came on line at Humbly Grove, in Hampshire.
	So, today, storage and import capacity is up, gas supply has met demand each day this winter, and storage levels are healthy. However, I am not satisfied with the under-use of some of our import infrastructure. Although the interconnector has been importing at new highs and has responded to price signals, it still has not delivered gas to the UK at full capacity. The lack of liberalisation of EU energy markets, which was mentioned in an intervention, is at the heart of the problem. Ofgem has asked the European Commission to investigate urgently the interconnector's operation, and I am pleased to say that this work is now well under way.
	We know that a tension exists between the liberalised energy markets in Britain and the largely unliberalised energy markets in Europe.

Tobias Ellwood: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene a second time. The Government were recently in charge of the EU presidency for six months. Was that not an ideal opportunity to get to the core of this issue and to sort out a gas market in Europe?

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman's interventions are beautifully timed. I was about to say that, thanks to the work of my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy at the December Energy Council, the European Commission agreed to make full use of its legal powers to tackle the serious malfunctions in EU energy markets. Member states have also agreed a wide range of actions designed to bring about tangible improvements in the functioning of European gas and electricity markets.
	Looking ahead, in the next couple of years new pipelines from Norway and the Netherlands will open, which will eventually be capable of providing up to a third of our annual gas needs. Two new LNG terminals are being constructed at Milford Haven, and further terminals are planned at Canvey Island and Teesside. Two further storage facilities are currently under construction at Aldbrough and Holford.

Michael Clapham: In the next 18 months to two years, 28 per cent. more gas is likely to be available as it comes down from Norway, and there could be a second dash for gas. If that occurred, at the same time as we are seeing a move to decommissioning nuclear stations and some of the old coal-fired stations, by 2020 we could be as much as 70 per cent. dependent on gas. That would be to the great detriment of the UK. Does my right hon. Friend feel that we need a mechanism to limit the proportion of electricity generated by gas to the current 40 per cent.?

Alan Johnson: No, I do not rush to that kind of conclusion, but I agree that it highlights the need for diversity of supply. The whole point of the review is to look forward to ensure that, as well as the other issues relating to a properly competitive market, dealing with fuel poverty and climate change, we must ensure security of supply. That means diversity, and not being too dependent on any one source of energy. The point that my hon. Friend has raised is a crucial issue for the review—and it may come to the conclusion that there should be a level above which gas should not go. Who knows? I do not.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alan Johnson: I shall take one more intervention, and then I shall make some progress.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that, because we shall now be importing such a huge amount of gas, Britain's electricity generation industry will, for the first time in our history, be too dependent on primary fuel sourcing from overseas? Never before in our history will we have been so dependent on fuel imports to generate electricity.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the issue at the heart of the review—not only what we are sourcing from abroad but where we are sourcing it from. As for gas, Norway and the Netherlands are hardly unstable countries, and they will supply the major part of it. None the less, that is an important element in the review, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said.
	The investments will increase supply. But, given the background of our increased reliance on imported gas over the next 15 to 20 years, and the important investment decisions that multinational companies will be making on where to invest, in which the price of energy will be a crucial factor, we cannot rely on those developments alone. We need to remain alert to new ways of increasing supply, and be quick to build on new developments in the way in which we supply, import and store gas.
	Rapid advances in technology are taking place, with the potential to make a real difference. Britain's legal framework needs to be capable of dealing with those developments. Today, I can announce new measures to increase the potential for gas storage in the UK. First, we will revise the legal regime covering new offshore gasstorage and offshore gas unloading. When parliamentary time is available, I will introduce legislation to achieve that.
	Over the next decade, companies will be able to use new technology to create salt caverns offshore and store gas in them. There is strong potential for gas storage in a number of geological formations offshore, in areas such as the Irish sea and the southern North sea. That could significantly add to the UK's gas supply capacity. There is already commercial interest in creating those new facilities. We will ensure that the right framework is in place to allow them to be created. The new framework will also facilitate innovative proposals for unloading liquid natural gas tankers at offshore mooring buoys connected by pipeline to the shore.
	Secondly, we will also examine the onshore consents regime, with the possibility of further legislation if appropriate. This work will move forward in parallel and in conjunction with the energy review, and the Barker review of land use planning, established by the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister.

Adam Afriyie: At the same time as the review, and the Government, are considering the regulation governing the storing of natural gas, will they also review the legislation surrounding the storage of carbon dioxide in those same geological formations?

Alan Johnson: Yes, indeed. International law requires us to do that, so it will be an important part of our review.

John Grogan: Is there a case for giving Ofgem power to oversee offshore gas as well as onshore gas so that it can oversee the whole market and ensure that it operates efficiently?

Alan Johnson: There may be, and we shall look at that element in the review. It has been raised with us, but we have also heard the case against doing that, so the argument remains finely poised.
	Our energy market, like energy markets around the world, is facing long-term challenges. The days of cheap indigenous supplies are over, and, like most other countries, we will have to import more energy and pay more for it. As we move forward with the review, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and I will look to involve closely the many people in the House and outside it who have a keen interest in this important issue. Ensuring safe, affordable energy for all in a way that minimises CO 2 emissions must be our first priority, and I welcome the opportunity to debate these important issues on the Floor of the House today.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us this debate. It has been some time a-coming; we have been calling for it for six months or more, but I imagine it will be the first of many on an important topic.

Malcolm Wicks: We were waiting for you.

Alan Duncan: I am very flattered. I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to you and the House for not being able to be here for the winding-up speeches. They are in the capable hands of the Minister, who will, I hope, still be in his flattering mood, and of my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry).
	In July, the Department issued a report on the 2003 Energy White Paper. It said:
	"Our goal is that people and businesses can rely on secure supplies of energy—gas, fuel and electricity—at affordable prices delivered through competitive markets, whilst minimising the impact on the environment."
	Well, that sweeping statement might not quite be motherhood and apple pie, but it is quite a tall order in what is an increasingly highly complicated world. Two years on from the White Paper, the ambitions described in that statement look somewhat distant. The best we can say is that progress has been mixed. In some respects, and contrary to the best intentions of new Labour, we have moved not forwards but back. This winter, we shall see real signs of the Government's failure to achieve those aims over the past eight years and their failure so far—we hope it is only "so far"—to equip Britain for the energy security challenges of the 21st century.
	There is considerable upheaval and uncertainty in the energy sector worldwide, which affects both our immediate supplies and our wish to establish a viable, enduring, long-term energy policy framework. We are witnessing the massive expansion of demand from Asia. Gas and oil prices have risen significantly: insufficient domestic capacity and storage have contributed to a quadrupling of gas prices. Following the explosion in Hemel Hempstead, we have seen restrictions in the supply of jet fuel to our main airports—

Alan Johnson: indicated dissent.

Alan Duncan: No, there definitely have been. I was grounded for two hours on the apron the other day. [Interruption.] Well, I thought that the Secretary of State was shaking his head.

Malcolm Wicks: It was a big fire.

Alan Duncan: Of course it was a big fire. It was exactly the kind of security issue that we have to grapple with in any sensible review and in the very debate we are having this afternoon.
	Insurgency in Iraq and nuclear fears in Iran contribute to habitual doubts about political stability in the middle east. A spat between Russia and Ukraine has recently caused spikes in the gas price, and fears remain that Russia will again flex its political muscles and disrupt supply.
	All that is but part of the global backdrop to the challenges of creating a sustainable energy policy. To that uncertainty, one needs to add all the domestic questions of the financial and economic framework in which investment decisions—necessarily long term—have to be made, some conditions of which are utterly unhelpful to those decisions.
	The UK is increasingly vulnerable on energy security. That manifests itself in the higher prices we are paying for energy when compared with our competitors. I shall come to the causes and security issues shortly, but I should like first to examine the scale of the problem. Whereas we cannot, of course, be insulated from the impact of global price shifts, the problem is that we are suffering more than we need to and are paying more than we ought to. Whereas small UK companies paid 12 per cent. less for electricity than those in France in July 2004, by October 2005 they were paying 15 per cent. more.
	In respect of gas, the Energy Intensive Users Group has said that
	"new contract prices to large industrial consumers are already more than 30 per cent. higher than their equivalents in France, and more than 40 per cent. above those in Germany—a situation that is set to get worse over the coming months."
	That is both unnecessary and a serious threat to our economic competitiveness.
	In recent months, four European countries have overtaken us and now pay cheaper prices for natural gas. There are also increasing problems for domestic users: the consumer price index shows that end-user fuel bills rose by 14 per cent. in the past year.
	Paradoxically, as the Secretary of State was honest enough to admit earlier, Britain is becoming more dependent on gas at a time when elsewhere in the world there is greater optimism about, and progress being made in, alternative and diversified energy sources. The clean coal and carbon capture schemes, among others, offer genuine hope for the conversion of existing technologies. Meanwhile, Denmark and Portugal lead the world in the provision of wind and wave power.

David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the potential for clean coal technology. There has been a bonfire of the policies in the Opposition, so will he say whether the Conservatives can see emerging from the smoke a substantial role for coal in increasing diversity of supply? If so, would that include the 800 million tonnes in the Asfordby coalfield, which largely lies beneath his constituency?

Alan Duncan: It is very sad that the Britain's most modern deep mine, which is in my constituency, ended up being closed because of geological faults. We can have an honest discussion of these matters, and I commend the Government for holding the energy review. It is a bit late, but it is happening. The Opposition will track the review, and hold a parallel one of our own. The challenge facing us is a cross-party matter: if there exists usable domestic coal that meets the environmental objectives about which we all agree, coal will indeed have a role in future. However, we must prove that the technology that renders coal clean for use is available and generally applicable. If we can do that, the answer is yes, we can use coal; if not, the answer is more likely to be no.

Dennis Skinner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: It is always a deep pleasure to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Dennis Skinner: If the shadow Minister is so concerned about clean coal technology, why, when the Tories were in power, did he support the closure of the Grimethorpe processing plant? That plant used clean coal technology.

Alan Duncan: I supported the closure because the technology was not ready and the economic argument was not convincing. However, if the Secretary of State thinks that it is a viable option now, I am sure that he will open it up again especially for the hon. Gentleman.
	As I said, the Opposition called for ages on the Government to hold a comprehensive review. We repeated that call for more than six months, and it was echoed by the director general of the Department's own energy group. However, we have the review at last, and we look forward to doing our bit and making as good a contribution as possible.
	My objective this afternoon is to present what we consider to be the key issues in energy security that we hope will be addressed by the energy review. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister for Energy when he thinks that the review will be concluded. That will give us an idea of the full timetable, given that the Secretary of State helpfully announced the beginning of the review earlier this afternoon.
	The first issue is energy efficiency. Unnecessary energy consumption is a burden on the environment, costs the UK more than needs to be the case, and makes us more vulnerable than other countries. The Opposition's second concern has to do with our dependence on imports. Our supplies of fuel should come from the most diverse possible range of sources, and we should favour liberalised markets over those that might be subject to irrational Government diktats.
	The third issue is renewable energy and the diversity of technology. The energy supplies that we need should come from a diverse pool of technologies, so that there is sufficient flexibility to adapt and adjust to changes in individual markets. That is a medium to long-term aim, but we need to get moving on it as soon as possible.
	Let us start with energy efficiency. Energy efficiency encompasses everything from the insulation in our lofts to the decentralisation of our energy supply. We need a proper programme for efficiency that reduces our dependence on energy, and in our homes we need to be doing more with less, which reduces demand and thus CO 2 emissions. This is not just a marginal issue: it is essential for alleviating fuel poverty.
	We need to become more efficient in the way that we use energy and we need to lose less in the way that we transmit it. On 30 January last year, the Environmental Audit Committee reported that the Government
	"is failing to incorporate its own rhetoric on sustainable development into housing policy".
	That is especially true with regard to new builds from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. Without dramatic reforms, housing could account for 55 per cent. of the UK's carbon emissions by 2050. That is almost double today's amount. We are alarmed to see that, yet again, the ODPM has committed itself to a course of action aimed at increasing the number of new houses built, without considering sufficiently the wider implications for sustainability or energy efficiency.
	We therefore hope that the energy review will look further into encouraging and improving energy efficiency, which is especially important given the rise in CO 2 emissions in each of the past two years. Measures to do with better insulation and hybrid cars could be a start, but more radical options are becoming available that offer even greater benefits. For example, as I have mentioned, the current centralised infrastructure of energy production and distribution is an area for further study. An astonishing 65 per cent. of the energy available from the fossil fuels burnt never reaches the homes and businesses that pay the bills. Some is lost in the inefficient generation process, but yet more is lost in transmitting electricity over great distances. Decentralised models, including combined heat and power systems, substantially reduce that loss. If the Government were serious about climate change and energy security, they would look seriously at decentralised models. Instead of following the good examples that have been set, the Government are setting one of the worst examples imaginable by failing to convert their talk about microgeneration into a serious policy to achieve it.

Malcolm Wicks: That's not true.

Alan Duncan: If it is not true, I look forward to the Minister saying so when he winds up, so that it is on the record.

Malcolm Wicks: It is on the record.

Alan Duncan: Well, it needs to be put there again.
	Woking borough council has shown what it is possible to do in this area. While the Government continue to consume ever more energy, Woking council's decentralised energy system has reduced its energy consumption by 44 per cent. despite—perhaps the Minister can explain this—overcoming massive regulatory hurdles.
	The Woking model implements a range of measures to increase efficiency and reduce emissions. Sustainable combined heat and power sources have been built in the borough that are up to 90 per cent. efficient. Those, along with solar and other renewable sources, provide power on a local scale, and so reduce the energy losses in transportation, and hence their overall consumption. To be fair to the Minister, at least the Government have awarded Woking beacon status in recognition of its work.
	Local generation and the savings made also raise fundamental questions about the use of the national grid. The efficiency and structure of the national grid must form part of the energy review.

Malcolm Wicks: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's cleaner and greener remarks, but I wished to point out that because we are interested in micropower and microgeneration, we have been consulting on the barriers to it and we shall issue a report in the coming months. I would like to award the hon. Gentleman beacon status, but he needs to do a little more homework first.

Alan Duncan: I am certainly a beacon of something, but I am not sure of what. I look forward to reading that report when it is published in due course. That brings me conveniently to my second point, which is that the Government could have done more to secure our existing energy sources. Given our heavy and increasing reliance on gas, surely alarm bells should have rung more loudly in Government when we became a net importer of gas in 2004.
	The UK continental shelf used to act as a strategic reserve for gas. That was a crucial national resource. The immediate supplies are no longer there. I should be fascinated to hear from the Minister what estimates his Department has made of the extra oil and gas there would have been from the North sea had they not been so heavily taxed, especially by a windfall tax. That means that our import capacity and storage facilities are now perilously inadequate. [Interruption.] I hear protests from Labour Members, but it is an elementary economic principle that if one thumps something with a tax, one gets less out of it. The representations that we have heard give clear calculations that there would be much more oil and gas coming out of the North sea if they were not so punitively taxed by the Chancellor.
	Paradoxically, we are highly dependent on gas, whose market structures are full of imperfections, and yet oil, so often labelled as a commodity controlled by a cartel, is in fact much more freely and flexibly traded in a much more free and transparent market. I caution the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) against railing against speculators as she did, and urge her to study the workings of energy markets the better to understand how prices are set. The thing about the free market is that that is not the case for gas, and that is our key electricity-generating fuel.
	The persistence of oil index pricing in the European market imposes costs to the tune of £10 billion a year on British consumers. The recent large increase in the price of gas on the continent has little to do with broad supply and demand issues for gas as a commodity, but rather derives from the more general problems in the European gas market. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) said earlier, the Government did nothing about that when they held the presidency of the Union.
	Moving on to my third point, we can improve our energy security position—

Paddy Tipping: Will the hon. Gentleman give way before he moves on?

Alan Duncan: One day, the hon. Gentleman will move on, but I am waiting.

Paddy Tipping: I am waiting too; I have been waiting a long time. The hon. Gentleman has made a great deal of the role of the market in energy supply. Does he agree that the key discussion point for the energy review will be how far the market operates and how far the state has a responsibility for guaranteeing energy supply? The market has served us well historically, but it may now be more important to have more direct Government intervention. Is that the view of his party?

Alan Duncan: That is quite a serious point, and it is not an unreasonable one. Markets, in my view, serve the interests of energy extremely well, but inevitably there are issues of security, spare capacity and the ability to swap from one commodity to another which markets cannot always automatically do as quickly as consumers desperately need them to. The interrelationship between the state and a free market is crucial for that and also for the investment climate in which people take long-term decisions. That question should be in the review, and we will look at it sensibly and responsibly, as the hon. Gentleman implied.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Alan Duncan: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).

Adam Afriyie: My hon. Friend may not be aware that Centrica's headquarters is based in my constituency. At a recent meeting that I had with its chairman and several others, they made it very clear to me that they have been making representations to the Government for many years, saying that the Government should sort out the liberalisation of the gas markets in the European Union. Does my hon. Friend share my alarm that no serious action has been taken by the Government on that front?

Alan Duncan: I fully agree with my hon. Friend. That, too, will be a serious focal point for the energy review.

John Hemming: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

Alan Duncan: I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not give way. I do not want to deprive the many Members who want to speak of the opportunity to do so.
	We can improve our energy security position by establishing a technologically diverse energy supply sector. Let us take a look at the Government's record on that so far. Far from increasing our diversity, we have been shutting it down. Gas power now accounts for 40 per cent. of the electricity supplied in the UK, approximately double the reliance of 10 years ago. Nuclear power currently provides about a fifth of our electricity needs, but most of our nuclear power stations, as the Secretary of State said and we all know, are set to close, probably over the next 15 years or so. That will leave a capacity of only 7 per cent. of the country's needs.
	New investment in nuclear power is obviously an option that we need to examine carefully. It has positive implications for climate change, diversity and the continuity of supply. Without nuclear build, many people believe that we shall struggle to meet our 2010 CO 2 obligations, even though most of our CO 2 challenge lies in sectors other than power generation. However, nuclear power raises serious concerns about national security, the handling of waste and its long-term economics.

Alan Whitehead: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, especially his comment that a number of people suggest that nuclear power will be essential to meeting our 2010 renewables targets, when were we to press the nuclear button tomorrow not a single kilowatt of nuclear power would be produced for the next 12 years.

Alan Duncan: If the hon. Gentleman had listened a bit more carefully, he would have heard the rest of what I said. I suggest that he reads Hansard.
	The Secretary of State has to contend with the serious problem that for those wanting to invest in energy generation, in our current investment climate, the only viable sector that justifies long-term investment is gas. That is a massive problem for the balance that I imagine he wants in investment decisions. The present investment climate, which makes gas more attractive than anything else, compounds and risks compounding further our dependence on gas as our principal source of fuel.

David Drew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me for not giving way? He has already intervened and perhaps he can catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye later.
	The Government have told us that renewable energy sources will satisfy our need for diversity. However, it looks increasingly unlikely that their target of 20 per cent. of energy from renewables by 2020 will be achieved. Even if it is met, it has been estimated that by then 60 per cent. of electricity generation would come from gas. That would constitute a large increase in our dependence on gas, which, with its volatile price, undermines the energy stability that we all want. In addition, due to the depletion of North sea gas reserves it has been estimated that 80 per cent. of our gas would be imported, so considering the gas element alone, it means that we would be dependent on imports for nearly half our electricity.
	Unfortunately, the current raft of measures designed to encourage diversity is failing; for example, the costs imposed on generating companies by the Government's renewables obligation are passed on to consumers, who will end up subsidising renewable energy by as much as £1 billion a year by 2010 and £1.5 billion by 2015. However, although the renewables obligation provides enough subsidy to make onshore wind profitable, it does not do enough for any of the other technologies, and a viable and significant renewables sector depends on a range of renewable generation technologies.
	Those technologies face the gap between the grant funding available for early stage development and the price support available through the renewables obligation. Until the gap is bridged, offshore wind, biomass, wave, tidal and solar power will be largely or wholly confined to demonstration projects, unable to complement and compete with onshore wind. It is reasonable to be highly concerned that the Government are creating perverse incentives for onshore wind, which is a controversial and visually intrusive technology, while disincentivising other renewable energy technologies, which are less so. The result is that far from increasing our diversity, we are shutting it down. So I say again, gas power accounts for 40 per cent. of the electricity supplied in the UK—approximately double the reliance of 10 years ago and the diversity we want is not marching forward as it should, and could.
	There has been too much delay already regarding energy policy. We need to see emphasis on the efficient use of energy, perhaps in many places following the Woking model, greater security of energy supply and a more technologically diverse approach to energy sources. Perverse incentives that act to make it less likely that renewable energy sources will be developed need to be reformed and made to work. We look forward to constructive proposals to deal with the key issues and a firm commitment from the Government not to hesitate further in working to secure our energy supplies for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that Mr. Speaker has placed an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches that takes effect from now.

Nick Brown: The context of today's debate must be global warming—the most important single problem that this country faces. It is an international problem. Our contribution to its solution will not alone solve the whole problem, but as a nation state we have a duty to set a lead. We must punch above our weight, and we must play our full part as a country in international efforts to find a solution. It therefore logically follows that there should be no solution to the question of security of energy supply that exacerbates the problem of global warming. Indeed, the solutions that we find must bear down on that problem.
	As the Secretary of State made clear in his introductory remarks, the energy issues that face our country are not immediate, but they are marching remorselessly towards us and the lead times for any solution are, of necessity, long. The key features of the issue are well understood—the declining output of existing nuclear stations and the reduction in output from coal-fired power stations by about half over the next 15 years. Thus, there is a need to replace existing capacity and to meet future and, we would all accept, rising demand.
	The implication of all that is increased reliance on the international energy market. Other countries are in that position—I do not accept that it is unreasonable—but we must understand that, if we take the same approach, we will compete with those countries against a background of clear and steadily rising demand. We must face up to the fact that the international energy market is not the free market that we would like it to be. Indeed, even in the European Union, the energy market is not the free market that we would like it to be. I commend the Secretary of State's efforts to liberalise that market, but we are not there yet.
	We must also recognise that there is an increasing tendency for national Governments in exporting countries to intervene in industry issues for reasons that are unrelated to the gas or oil market. In other words, they view their possession of a desirable resource as an extension of foreign policy, as well as something to sell to people who want to buy. We must take that into account when we consider our own nation state's security of supply.
	A modern, post-industrial economy is inter-reliant and fundamentally reliant on electricity. Issues such as the just-in-time delivery of foodstuffs and other goods, the running of the transport network, modern communications and modern information technology all rely on electricity. I suppose that that is stating the obvious, but that does not make it any the less important.
	The Secretary of State was straightforward enough to say that price rises, which cynics might say could be a conservation measure, seem inevitable. Again, we must accept that, if price rises come, they will impact on theelderly, the vulnerable and our industrial competitiveness.
	How should we respond? I do not believe that conservation and considering new methods of generation are rival policies. I strongly agree with the Secretary of State's point on the importance of diversity of supply and we should continue the good work being done on home insulation and driving up energy efficiency standards in building regulations, for example. Much has been done, but much remains to be done.
	There are good ideas in the industry. I wish to draw the Government's attention to a recent project in which Siemens, located in Heaton in my constituency, and Alcan, which runs an aluminium smelter on the Northumbrian coast, secured significant energy efficiencies simply by refurbishing the turbines in an existing power plant. I commend that approach to the Government and the House.
	The North sea is a mature oil and gas field, but it still has reserves and we should encourage the use of new technologies to maximise the extraction potential and get the maximum benefit from it. Now is not the time to engage in a technical debate on the working of the North sea tax regime, but there is a strong case for the Government and the industry to work in partnership on ensuring that we maximise the gain from the North sea fields.
	Significant losses occur in electricity transmission between generators and end users, but developments in conduits have the potential to reduce that loss and to increase efficiency. We should take an interest in those developments, and if new investment is required, so be it. In addition, if our aim is to reduce the losses that occur during transmission between generator and consumer, it is logical to locate power plants closer to consumers of power. There is a north-south divide in this country, with generating capacity located predominantly in the north and demand—certainly increasing demand—tending to be in the south. There would be consequential issues arising from such a policy, but if we are serious about reducing inefficiencies in electricity supply, we have to face up to that divide. I urge the Government to do that.
	There are potential contributions from other sources: wind farms and other renewables have been mentioned and I think a case can be made for reconsideration of hydroelectric schemes, but I urge Ministers to give particular consideration to carbon sinks and clean coal technology. Output from conventional coal-fired power stations will decline; if it is possible—economically possible—to invest in clean-coal technology and new methods of carbon capture, we should do so. Having said all that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Robert Smith: I declare my entry in the Register of Members' Interests as a shareholder in Shell.
	I welcome the chance to debate security of energy supply. In a sense, the point at which the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) finished is the point at which I begin. Like   the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr.   Duncan), I think that the crucial first step in achieving security of supply is to ensure the efficient use of existing supply. The better we use what we have, the less we need to worry about imports and finding new sources of generation.
	Much remains to be done. On Tuesday, European Standing Committee C is to debate Europe-wide energy efficiency measures. It is estimated that efficiency could be improved by at least 20 per cent. across the European Union.
	Provided that they are applied effectively, it makes sense to work through building regulations for new build and for extensions, but we have to deal with existing buildings as well because our housing stock will not be replaced quickly. Many people who face fuel poverty will not necessarily move into new housing stock, so it is crucial that we tackle the energy efficiency of the existing housing stock. We have relied on low fuel prices and improved incomes to tackle fuel poverty. However, someone's income can vary according to their circumstances, and if we can tackle the energy efficiency of our housing stock we will reduce people's dependency on energy so that they are less likely to find themselves in fuel poverty. We still face a major hurdle in improving consumer confidence so that people accept the new technologies, install them and understand what can be done to maximise the energy efficiency of their home. There is a problem, too, with marketing and presentation, as people do not see that the increased investment in their house can be offset against its improved value and long-term savings in energy bills. We need to find innovative ways of enabling people to measure energy conservation in their home and in their energy bills. A complete household energy package will demonstrate the benefits of conservation over time in reduced bills, thus enabling people to see more clearly the equation between conservation and investment.
	Given the current high prices, it is a good time for the Government to press the case for energy conservation, and to use public information to convey both its importance and the opportunities available for conservation. Energy conservation and increased security of supply are important and do not just affect heating and electricity. Transport is a major contributor to carbon emissions, as well as a major consumer of energy. Replacing crude fuel taxes with road user charges would be a more effective way of ensuring more efficient use of fuel while ensuring that people who live in communities where road transport is the only available form of transport are not penalised. Replacing the climate change levy with a carbon tax will focus the economic signals on the importance of saving and conserving energy.
	Our debate has touched on the important benefits that can be derived from improvements in the distribution of energy and the way in which we can bring energy generation closer to consumers' homes. Every year, 1 million or so gas boilers are replaced, and it would be beneficial if people had the confidence to replace them with a mini combined heat and power plant to generate electricity in their home and provide heat at the same time. Again, that would reduce demand and the need for large distribution systems, thus leading to a more efficient market.
	In many ways, this debate has been triggered by the high prices this winter. The Secretary of State said that there is a problem partly because world energy prices are high. As has been said, the international oil market sets the price of oil around the world. Gas remains a much more regional market, although it is becoming more connected as more liquefied natural gas is processed and gas is shifted from one market to another. We have seen an extreme example of what can happen in an isolated part of the regional market. The UK is in transition from its status as a supplier that meets its own energy needs to one as an importer, and has experienced problems in coming to terms with new gas imports. The transition to the new market arrangement coincided with forecasts of cold weather, which did not improve confidence in a thinly traded market. What guidance is given to the Met Office on the way in which it makes its   predictions? Is more caution creeping into its predictions and, to avoid accusations of omitting predictions of bad weather, has it over-predicted bad weather? Do the Government monitor the Met Office's predictions, which have a major impact on the market.
	Clearly, for many years, domestic users and energy users with normal contract supplies have benefited from the market. However, as has been said, the transition investment will be made later and, as can be expected simply by relying on the market to send the signal, there are spikes in the market. Both as a nation and as individual energy users, we must decide whether the benefits of the good years, when we do not need investment, are worth the price of uncertainty and upheaval in the transition years. Other markets have probably paid over the odds in past years, but they have not experienced upheaval in times of transition and new investment. There may not be power cuts and loss of energy, as the Secretary of State and the Minister have often assured us, but self-disconnection because of fuel poverty is a serious problem for people on prepayment meters. Self-disconnection by large industry is a major problem for the economy. A large business may be geared up to disconnecting from supply and not operating during high peak times, but the supply chain is affected and that hidden way of balancing energy supply has a knock-on effect on the economy.
	The Secretary of State said that the pipes are coming and the LNG shipment terminals are being built, connecting us to new supplies. However, as he has also said, the pipes have not always been full and the ships have not always turned up. With winter projection models of the stability and balancing of the UK energy market, more awareness is needed of the interaction with markets beyond our borders. The pipe is not an adequate solution unless there is fuel flowing though it. As the Secretary of State said, we must consider the liberalisation of the market and ensure that both ends of the pipe are operating in the same market. That will bring more stability to supplies and more confidence and predictability to prices.

Michael Weir: Is there not a danger in relying too heavily on gas coming through the interconnector from the European mainland? When we have severe winters in the UK, there are also likely to be severe winters and increased demand in the northern European continent, which will also seek the gas coming through its territory. Is there not a danger of that gas being diverted, rather than coming through the interconnector?

Robert Smith: We need an open market with similar storage regimes at both ends of the interconnector so that forward supply and planning can be built into the risks and the models for trading on that market. That will not work if there are two different markets. The market is further distorted by the fact that the quality of gas in mainland Europe is different from that of UK gas. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how his Department intends to take account of gas quality standards, and how we will adapt our trading arrangements to deal with gas of a different quality that flows from the European market.
	Norwegian supplies will improve the situation in the next two years. Alarm bells have been set off by what happened in Ukraine. The upside of that was that the Russians saw that if they want to reach their markets, they need to continue to make supplies. No matter how rogue the nation, the nation at the other end of the pipeline will not get the money unless it provides the goods. Sellers need money as much as consumers need supplies. I welcome the legal changes that are coming to encourage more storage. That will greatly improve the situation on this side of the market.
	The North sea must be recognised for its major contribution to the UK economy, in capital investment, jobs, tax and supply of fuel. The Department of Trade and Industry has done much to encourage the maximisation of its continuing potential. The North sea still has much to offer. The fallow fields initiative and the access to infrastructure have been extremely welcome, but as has already been remarked in the debate, it seems perverse for the Chancellor to increase the tax regime during his pre-Budget report at such a crucial time when we are trying to encourage more investment in gas and more supply, exploration and production.
	What is even more perverse about the way the Chancellor has treated the industry this time round with his tax shock is the fact that he introduced it two thirds of the way through the financial year, making the planning environment even more unstable for investors. Also, as I said in my intervention, he will not reduce the tax if oil prices fall. The tax is clearly not designed to send signals to investors that he is interested in encouraging their investment. On top of the previous tax shock, it has sent disturbing signals to the market about investment.
	The Chancellor should consider abating petroleum tax on older fields, because they are the hubs that allow us to explore the smaller fields around them. He should also consider how the tax impacts on tariffs, because the Department of Trade and Industry is trying to encourage the maximum use of pipelines and infrastructure, so it is perverse for the Chancellor to increase the cost of using the pipelines through extra tax. A lot of gas remains to be extracted, so it is important that we get the matter right.
	The North sea has an important role to play in carbon capture and storage to reduce the environmental impact of carbon fuels. The Miller project off Peterhead is a good example of the North sea's potential as a place to dispose of carbon rather than putting it out into the atmosphere, which causes environmental disruption. Preserving activity in the North sea while we develop the technology is vital, and if we get ahead in that technology there are markets in China and India, which must produce carbon in meeting their energy needs. We must therefore find a solution on carbon capture, which, as we heard in yesterday's Westminster Hall debate, also offers a potential future for coal.
	Our nuclear industry has left us with a massive clean-up bill for historic waste of £56 billion and rising. Nuclear energy was originally described as too cheap to meter, but it is leaving us a major legacy. It makes sense to use the existing plant for its maximum life, because the cost has already been incurred, but we need a permanent solution on waste. The incentives to build new capacity for nuclear power would be better directed towards dealing with the problem, which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) mentioned earlier, of the signals to the different renewables sectors, in which we need to encourage diversification.

Daniel Kawczynski: Are the Liberal Democrats totally opposed to any future investment in the next generation of nuclear power stations?

Robert Smith: The Liberal Democrats are not opposed to research, but we are opposed to the development of a new generation of nuclear power stations, which would be a mistake. Research in nuclear fusion offers potential long-term benefits for this country's economy and science base.
	Britain is an island with a huge coastline, and wave and tidal power have major contributions to make in the long term. The Scottish Executive have already seen the problem of the imbalance of incentives sent to the renewables sector by encouraging the marine sector with their tripling of the renewables obligation, which will restore the investment balance and encourage marine renewables.

Alan Duncan: Following on from my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), under what conditions would the hon. Gentleman favour investing in a new generation of nuclear power stations?

Robert Smith: At the current time, we do not believe that it would make sense to invest in nuclear power stations, because we do not want to waste large sums of consumers' and taxpayers' money when there are better options. We do not want the environmental impacts, security concerns and terrorist risks that nuclear power could offer this country. A new generation of nuclear power stations is not the right solution, because we should not produce more waste when we do not have a proper solution to the current problem.
	The skills developed in the hostile environment of the North sea have a lot to offer the marine renewables sector. Biomass is a major renewable that also has a lot to offer: our rural economy is currently going through major change, and given what has happened to farming and forestry, the new markets that biomass could produce would benefit our rural economy, our security of supply and our environment.
	Gas is in the headlines but high oil prices also hit sectors of our economy that do not have access to gas. Farming, contracting, fishing and transport as well as domestic and industrial heating away from the gas main suffer from high oil prices. Perhaps the Minister could expand in his winding-up speech on how the European Union dialogue with the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries is progressing on tackling long-term stability through exploring and producing enough oil from OPEC to stabilise world oil prices.
	People say that we should not depend on the rest of the world but we cannot escape the fact that we live in an interdependent world. The Secretary of State mentioned the G8 and what we are trying to achieve at the World Trade Organisation. It is crucial that we do not allow protectionism and do not accept the argument that the national interest would be best served by cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. The only way to protect ourselves from global forces and world markets is to ensure that they operate efficiently and effectively. We cannot run away from them; they will have an impact on us, no matter how much we try to be self sufficient.
	The Government need to redouble their efforts on energy liberalisation and ensure that their proposals for storage capacity stabilise the market. In the long-term, we need to use our scarce energy resources with greater efficiency, make full use of our potential to capture carbon and unlock the renewable resources that nature has given us.

Eric Illsley: I greatly welcome the debate but it is a pity that we have been given only three hours for it, approximately an hour and 40 minutes of which will be taken up by Front Benchers, given the length of time that they have already taken and the winding-up speeches later. It is a shame that we get such a short debate on an issue that is so important.
	The debate is timely. Although I listened carefully to the Secretary of State's comments on our current energy supplies and our security, we read newspaper articles that refer to the "crisis" in our electricity and gas power supplies. Although we have probably not yet reached the crisis, given the long lead-in times for any new development—nuclear, gas, coal or anything else—we must start making decisions now and not wait any longer while establishing reviews, investigations and consultations about how to progress.
	The Secretary of State pointed out that we face several problems with our existing energy supply. We are a net gas importer; our nuclear plants are ageing; our oil supplies in the North sea are expiring; our coal mines have been neglected, ignored, mothballed or simply closed; renewable sources have not come on stream as fast as they should; and perhaps we rely too much simply on windmills. While all that is happening, demand, which we have to meet, increases relentlessly year after year.
	I am surprised that the Government have decided on yet another review, because the previous one took place only in 2003. The White Paper that was produced then states:
	"By 2020 we could be dependent on imported energy for three-quarters of our total primary energy needs . . . we may become potentially more vulnerable to price fluctuations and interruptions to supply caused by regulatory failures, political instability or conflict in other parts of the world".
	What more do we need to know? Those words were in a White Paper three years ago. How many times do we have to say it? We need to take some action now.
	I went to the Library this morning and dug out a list of the Energy Committee's reports between 1987 and 1992. It is depressing that Energy Committee reports 16 years ago have the same titles as Trade and Industry Committee reports now. The reports then, as now, were on nuclear power, gas, renewables, clean coal technology and so on. We have known about the problems for a long time and we need to take action to deal with them now.
	We have a diverse selection of fuel sources, and every commentator tells us that security of supply will be achieved through that diversity, by ensuring that we have several energy sources. However, each source has its own problems. The problem with nuclear power is its ageing reactors and the cost of dealing with the existing nuclear waste, which is estimated at £56 billion. What are we to do with that waste? We do not even know how to get rid of it yet, and we are probably talking about tripling the amount that we produce if the proposed new stations go ahead. We do not know what to do with the nuclear waste that we already have.

Michael Jack: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eric Illsley: Not with only eight minutes to make my speech; I am sorry.
	Who will pay for the nuclear power and for the new stations? How will we get the planning permissions through, given the 15 years that it took to get Sizewell going, and given that we cannot alter the planning legislation? This Government tried to do that shortly after 1997. What about the underfunding, or unfunding, of the nuclear liabilities? Back in 1990, when the previous Conservative Government tried to privatise the nuclear energy industry, they simply could not do it. When the Energy Committee at the time asked for the financial reports on that privatisation from Kleinwort Benson, Rothschild and all the rest—believe me, you could have jacked your car up on those reports, Mr. Deputy Speaker—they discovered that the City of London and the private investors were not prepared to invest in it because it was too expensive and too risky. I cannot see anyone wanting to invest in it now, either. So who will pay for these nuclear power stations? Will the Government and the taxpayer foot the bill, then franchise them out under some private finance initiative scheme so that private industry can run them? Are we going to let private industry take all the profit while the taxpayer pays all the costs? I can see that going down very well.
	I mentioned coal earlier. We have an anti-coal DTI at the moment. There are elements in the DTI who simply do not want to know about British coal. They want it to wither on the vine and die away. Because of environmental restrictions, the energy supplied by coal will be down to 16 per cent. later this year anyway. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already mentioned Haworth and Rossington is in the same situation.
	In fairness, some of the mining companies that bought into the coal industry after 1994 have not been the best, but coal still has some advantages, one of which is clean coal technology. I should point out that that technology has been around for 25 years. When the Energy Committee produced its report in 1990, the first evidence that we took was from Texaco, whose representatives came to us and said, "What are you doing? We've already got clean coal technology in America. Come and look at it." It was already there; it has been around for a long time. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The power station at Grimethorpe copied the technology that was already running a power station in Stockholm back in 1990. Clean coal technology is already here.
	The other major advantage of coal is that we can stockpile it, as the Conservative Government realised in 1984. They stockpiled a lot of it for a long time. It does not run out, and we can quickly build the stations to use it. However much the DTI does not like coal, and however much people think that it is a dirty fuel, it will clearly be part of any solution, given the 10 years or so that it will take to get the nuclear power stations built. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) said, if we press the nuclear button tomorrow, those stations will still be 10 or 12 years away. We have coal here, now, and we can use it.
	The problems associated with gas are well documented. Even before the Ukraine situation, there were problems. Companies in my constituency, including Potters Ballotini, Rockware Glass and Carlton Brick, are experiencing problems. I chair the all-party group on the packaging industry, and we have made representations to Ministers. When I raised the question of gas supply at Question Time in December, I was told that there was no problem and that we had plenty of it. So why did the price quadruple in December? Somebody is trading it and manipulating the market to cause those problems.
	I shall finish by mentioning co-firing, or co-generation. This uses biomass with coal. At the moment, renewal obligation certificates are available to anybody—Drax power station, for example—using renewables such as oil cake, olive cake and biomass co-generated with coal. They get a 25 per cent. ROC for doing that, which will reduce to 15 per cent. That should be extended beyond April of this year.

Michael Jack: The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), in advocating coal, should not regard nuclear power as a rival. I support the development of clean coal technology and a wide range of alternative energy supply developments. This debate on energy security, however, illustrates one key issue—diversity is the key to security. The Government, in a document signed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said:
	"Britain's prosperity and wellbeing depend on access to secure and affordable energy supplies, and on mitigating the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change."
	I agree with that statement and therefore support diverse energy sources.
	Given the way in which Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have been depleting relatively cheap supplies of hydrocarbon fuels against a background of rapidly escalating world demand for energy, it is clear that we must take action immediately to deal with the energy security issue. In 1990, for example, 65 per cent. of the energy to generate electricity came from coal, which, by 2004, had decreased to 37 per cent., while the corresponding figure for gas increased from 0.7 per cent. to 35 per cent. A major change has therefore taken place in the energy market.
	As far as electricity generation is concerned, nuclear has chugged on serenely at around 20 per cent. I am an avowed enthusiast for maintaining our share of nuclear-powered electricity generation. My constituency is home to the production of the majority of the fuel for Britain's nuclear power stations, and I know that by 2020, with the existing shutdown programme, the percentage of electricity from nuclear sources will be down to 7 per cent., with all the implications that that has for diversity of supply and greenhouse gas emissions.

John Hemming: Are the raw materials for nuclear energy imported, or are they mined locally?

Michael Jack: I am sure that we are already buying nuclear energy from France through the interconnector, so the issue is of some importance to the United Kingdom.
	I have been impressed by the work done on new designs. I suggest that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central considers the OECD report, which compares and contrasts the full life costs—capital, running and decommissioning costs—of a range of new models of nuclear reactor. Even in Finland, the price of electricity generated from new nuclear reactors is comparable with that generated from gas and coal, considerably cheaper than wind, solar and micro-hydro power and cheaper than combined heat and power. That is a significant difference from the old days when we built nuclear power stations that were unable to cover their full costs without public subsidy. It is worth remembering that while Magnox power stations account for £13 billion of the £56 billion costs of Britain's nuclear legacy, our advanced gas–cooled reactors and pressurised water reactors are already covering their decommissioning costs in terms of their fuel and sites.

Frank Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Jack: No, I have given way once, and I wish to conclude my remarks.
	The advanced-passive reactor, the AP1000, is already a proven technology in the world. If Britain were to move towards a family of those reactors, capital and other costs would decrease considerably. Some 1,300 man years of design and safety work has already been carried out on that type of design. In terms of fuel efficiency, the newer forms of nuclear reactor are some 10 times more economic than current counterparts—for each gigawatt of power produced, they require 30 tonnes of fuel per year, compared with 300 tonnes of the same fuel required by Magnox power stations. Those new designs are very safe and have a passive safety system, which is not reliant on electric pumps or other automated facilities as is the present case. In terms of proven technology, they have a good safety record.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central rightly pointed out that coal could be stored. Uranium can be stored just as easily, and as it comes from friendly sources such as Australia and Canada, it is not subject to some of the political vagaries of the international hydrocarbons market. The fuel space needed for a family of 10 AP1000 reactors could be accommodated in one small house for a year. It is not a large physical challenge to ensure that we have continuity of supply as a result of the review.
	Members have spoken of the need for renewable energy. I strongly support it, whether it is land-based and harnessed from wind, harnessed from waves, or indeed obtained through the use of biomass, particularly in the context of bulk heat supplies. I note, however, a cautionary report from the company E.ON on the German experience of wind energy. Its 2005 wind report forecast that to ensure that wind can maintain its place in the energy mix, in 2020 Germany will need 48,000 MW of wind capacity—the equivalent of 2,000 MW of conventional plant. That demonstrates that if there is to be continuity of supply from wind energy, an awful lot will be needed.
	The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) neatly sidestepped the critique issued by the former energy Minister Brian Wilson, who observed in the House that while in general the Liberal Democrat party seemed to be in favour of wind, whenever a specific project was suggested they objected to it. I heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman to disabuse me of that idea.
	I strongly concur with what has been said today about energy saving. I applaud the Government's provision of money to mobilise citizens to become involved in energy-saving projects, but there must be a concerted effort by local authorities, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, energy providers and everyone else to make citizens understand what they can do individually by reducing electricity consumption or improving the efficiency of their houses.
	My purpose in speaking has been to emphasise the importance that I attach to nuclear energy. I hope that the Government will soon reach a conclusion on the review. We in the United Kingdom must maintain our nuclear skills, particularly in fuel manufacture, design and build. I firmly believe that nuclear energy is one of the key technologies for the future, and that the United Kingdom can play a positive role by replacing its existing nuclear power stations with a new generation of AP1000 designs.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that the winding-up speeches will probably begin in a little over an hour. A good many Members are still seeking to catch my eye. There is already an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches, but if Members could take rather less than their allotted time it would be very helpful, not just to the Chair but to others who are waiting to speak.

Michael Clapham: I shall begin where the Secretary of State began. He pointed out that electricity generation in this country is divided among a number of diverse sources, 40 per cent. being provided by gas, 33 per cent. by coal, 20 per cent. by nuclear power, perhaps 4 per cent. by renewables and a little by oil. That diversity provides some security, which I feel should be the nub of the argument. Nevertheless, enormous pressures are building up which will have an impact on the energy market. The International Energy Agency has said that over the next 30 years the demand for energy will increase by about 1.7 per cent. per annum. That increase will bring about new build of power stations. In Europe alone we will require 130 GW of energy replacement and new energy. Let me give the House an idea of how much that is. Drax power station, which is the largest power station in Europe, is 4 GW, so we will need to build a lot of Draxes to meet an energy demand of 130 GW over the next 30-odd years.
	The point has been forcefully made that in moving over to gas, the threat is that we could become over-dependent on it. Gas is currently scarce, and we know that some 400 million cu m of gas is used daily. The Secretary of State said that we can meet likely demand this winter, and we know that gas supply is likely to increase when the Norwegian interconnector is through. In fact, as a result there is likely to be a 28 per cent. increase.

John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, as the production figures show, although it is feasible to import gas into storage, market pressures operate to prevent that from happening?

Michael Clapham: Market pressures certainly do operate in that way. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) pointed out earlier, speculation in the market causes certain problems. Companies in her constituency have closed down and sold gas on, so there are difficulties associated with the market mechanism that need to be looked at.
	When gas capacity increases by 28 per cent., there is likely to be another dash for gas, unless a mechanism is put in place to prevent it. Given the likely simultaneous decommissioning of coal-fired and nuclear power stations, unless we can restrict that dash for gas, 70 per cent. of our electricity generation needs may have to be met by imported gas. In the first instance, such gas will come from Norway, but within five years Norwegian gas is likely to become very scarce, so we will be dependent on gas coming down the pipeline from Russia. Russia has become an energy superpower that will provide energy for the whole of Europe. There are real dangers in that. The phenomenon of terrorism and the problems that may arise because of international disputes put us in a very vulnerable position. I therefore hope that during the review, the Minister will look seriously at the question of how we move forward. One driver will be climate change, which will be the big issue for the Minister to examine when he considers all the factors that impact on the review.
	As was pointed out in strong terms by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley), coal is seen as a dirty fuel and we have got to get beyond that. The increase in the global energy market over the next 30 years is likely to occur in carbon fuels, and we have to be able to burn those fuels in a way that is compatible with our environmental aspirations. Clean coal technology provides that opportunity, and it is already here. Mitsui Babcock is producing supercritical boilers with a carbon capture facility; some are already being exported to China. We need to incentivise generators to invest in new clean coal technology. The first phase will be supercritical boilers with carbon capture, and the second is likely to be integrated gasification combined cycle units. I understand that four projects have already been given approval, so we are likely to see developments there too.
	I believe that clean coal technology can help to provide the solution that the Minister is looking for. It would allow us to burn coal, capture the carbon and use that carbon either for sequestration in the North sea or in other projects—for example, infusing carbon dioxide into coal seams to enhance the gasification process. There is already a project running in Scotland; Strathclyde university is involved, and it may go commercial.There are a number of ways in which we can deal with carbon dioxide. Clean coal technology will help us to provide a sound energy base, but it also provides another opportunity. If we are to deal with the global carbon dioxide problem, we shall have to transfer technology into the countries that now use enormous amounts of coal, such as China, India, Brazil and the up and coming new economies. We need to invest in clean coal technology, and I hope that the Minister will see it as part of his solution.
	The UK coal industry was privatised by the Conservatives in 1994. They privatised it into a failed market situation when it was below its critical mass, and they knew that it would wither away. Since then, the industry has been dependent on the Government, and had it not been for the present Government, it would already have passed on. There are now seven producing collieries, six in England and one in Wales, and there is a possibility of a new mine being sunk in Margam. That will be done in partnership with Corus, and it is for metallurgical coals.
	The English coalfield needs investment. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister is prepared to make that investment to ensure that it can continue to make a contribution to energy security.

Quentin Davies: I shall not say anything this afternoon very different from what I have said on previous occasions on this subject, but I shall say it with greater urgency, because of present circumstances in the world, and with a greater hope that it will be taken seriously both by the Government and by my Front-Bench colleagues, who, as we heard this afternoon, are to conduct their own parallel energy review.
	There have been two dramatic developments in the world over the past few months that we cannot ignore. One is that although the evidence of climate change has been apparent to us anecdotally for some years, because of such things as the changes in the seasons in this country, there is now empirical evidence, based on the latest measurements, that the amount of cold water sinking in the North Atlantic, which is the mechanism for the gulf stream, is falling. That is terrifying, because if the gulf stream failed, or was reversed, in a few generations' time this country would have a climate comparable with that of Labrador today.
	That is a major threat, and we have to take it seriously. We know that we are not likely to reach the 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 to which we have committed ourselves—at least, not without some major new action.
	The second new development is the substantial rise in the price of natural gas, which has doubled over the past couple of years, coupled with the fact that we have become a net importer of natural gas. Anyone who knows anything about the energy business knows that all gas and oil fields follow a bell curve pattern: once exploitation begins, production increases quite rapidly, then there is a plateau for quite a long time, but when the field begins to run into diminishing returns, production falls sharply away. I am afraid to say that the news can only get worse on natural gas against a background of rising international prices and energy demand. Being dependent on the Netherlands and Norway is, as has been said, relatively reassuring, but once we come to find a substantial proportion of our natural gas deriving from Algeria or Russia and other such countries, we will need to be very worried.

Frank Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Quentin Davies: I cannot as I am trying not to go into extra time.
	Against that background, I do not think that energy saving is enough. Of course, we all want to go in for energy saving, but we have to recognise that demand for energy will be increasing at the very time when some of our power stations, particularly the nuclear ones, have to be decommissioned. We must replace those sources of energy with new ones. We must also provide for new energy in future. Simply to talk about energy saving, as the Liberal party does, is a complete abdication. It is a cop-out, not a responsible policy line.
	Nor do I believe that renewables can be the answer. After all, all we have had so far from renewables has been wind. There has been no progress on ambitious ideas about mobilising tidal energy. Wind is very expensive. Subsidies disguise the additional economic cost, and wind is available on average for only 30 per cent. of the time. It is not a baseload source of energy, and although it is fine if it provides 4 per cent. or even 10 per cent. of energy—a few percentage points would be very desirable—it eventually becomes impractical, because we would need so much back-up capacity that the fixed costs of the back-up for when there is no wind, which is on average roughly 70 per cent. of the time, become excessive. That is not a solution.
	The only solution is that supported by colleagues and me. I very much endorse what my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said, and what he has also said on many occasions. We need to go, ambitiously and bravely, for a major programme of building new nuclear generators. In other words, we need to do, 20 years later than they did, what the French have so successfully done. I should like us to commit ourselves in the next few years to building, say, 10 new EPR stations, or perhaps dual reactor stations. Ten of those with 3 GW to 4 GW each would produce in 25 or 30 years time about half our current energy needs.
	If we are to move down that road, Parliament will have to take some decisions. We shall have to make a decision on a licensing regime. The nuclear inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive has gone to sleep over the past few years so far as licensing new models is concerned, even though new stations have been built in France, Finland and elsewhere. The inspectorate has done no work on that, and there will be enormous delay in getting it into gear. We should go for an EU regulation and licensing regime, which would enable us to leverage on the experience of the French and the Finns.
	We have to do something about the planning regime. We cannot possibly have the absolute fiasco of the Sizewell B inquiry, which I think lasted six years. From my experience in Northern Ireland, I can see what happens when we put a lot of lawyers in a room and pay them large amounts of money daily, as in the Saville inquiry. It all goes on for years and years and years.
	If we are going to do what I suggest, it will have to be done by private Bill procedure. Of course, private Bills can be prayed against, and Parliament can hear the evidence. We would never have built a railway system in the 19th century if it had not been for private Bills. I think we have to get back to that. I remember in my first Parliament supporting the private Bill on Felixstowe dock and harbour. We would never have had the Felixstowe dock without adopting that procedure, and what a success that has been.
	Then there is the climate change levy. We should not give a bonus to existing stations, which are making a reasonable amount of money and are rapidly depreciating. But for new nuclear build, we should exonerate energy produced by those stations from the levy. There is no real logic about applying the climate change levy to nuclear energy, which produces no carbon at all and does not affect the environment. We should remove that anomaly.
	Finally, we need to do something about limiting regulatory risk. The state—be it in London, Brussels or Vienna—is in a broad sense responsible for regulation, and if we are to get private sector capital investment in building new nuclear power stations, investors must be sure of the rules of the game on, for example, fuel treatment, recycling and decommissioning. They must be sure that the rules will not suddenly be arbitrarily changed. If the rules are changed, it is reasonable to require the state that changes them to meet the associated economic costs.
	Investors in the energy industry and others are looking at an average oil price of $50 a barrel, and that offers a viable reason for revisiting the nuclear programme. As I said, two of our EU partners, Finland and France, have made that analysis already. France is gaining immense benefits—some of the figures were quoted earlier in the debate—from the very brave decisions that it took in the 1970s. That is the way forward for us too, and I hope that the Government, and my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, have the courage to say as much over the coming months. We need to make a decision without delay.

Colin Burgon: The recent dispute between Russia and Ukraine has given the debate a sense of urgency, and the question of energy has entered the public consciousness in a way that I have not known before.
	I was surprised by the reaction of some right-wing think tanks and Government spokesmen in the US—the terms may be interchangeable—in criticising Russia's role in the dispute. The advice when communism collapsed was that Russia needed a big dose of marketisation, so there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air. The US has never been afraid to use its muscle in the energy sector, the oil embargoes that it has imposed on Cuba being only one example.
	I understand that the price that Ukraine paid to Russia for gas was about one fifth of the level in western Europe. It could be argued that that was detrimental to the wider environment, and I am sure that the Russians would argue that it was also detrimental to their economy. However, we should not be surprised by what happened in that dispute, as greater marketisation will inevitably lead to more conflicts of that nature. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that diplomatic channels represented the best way to deal with such problems in the future.
	The conflict between Russia and Ukraine caused certain people in this country to express their ideas about how to ensure security of supply in the future, but we must put the matter in context. As has been pointed out, we get roughly 70 per cent. of our gas from Norway; we do not get it from Russia.
	At the head of the queue of people giving us the answers to our energy problems are those in the tremendously powerful nuclear power lobby. I do not want to go into too much detail, but I have several questions for them to answer. First, how will we manage the increased amount of nuclear waste? What about the costs of a new nuclear programme? I have read that six new stations would cost some £26 billion. Interestingly, some Opposition Members have said that the state should play a key role in underwriting the building of new nuclear power stations. I think that that proposal is very dangerous.
	Another question has to do with wider security matters. If the UK goes nuclear, other countries will follow, and the existence of a broader nuclear skills base clearly increases the possibility that countries will acquire nuclear weapons. North Korea and Iran are obvious examples of that. American intelligence sources are occasionally worth listening to, and I understand that they have learned that al-Qaeda was thinking about attacking nuclear power stations—another factor that must be taken into consideration.
	Even if a green light is given to new nuclear construction, decades will pass before such stations will be able to supply power. In contrast, measures can be introduced now to promote energy efficiency and renewable generation. I hope that the Government will not give way on the objective of getting 10 per cent. of electricity from renewable sources by 2010, rising to 20 per cent. by 2020.
	Promoting energy efficiency is a wise, sensible and practical policy, but we must not forget to look at the efficiency of electricity generation. It has already been pointed out that electricity generators lose all but some 38 per cent. of the energy of their fuel through inefficient technology. On the consumption side, only 18 per cent. of houses in Britain are fully insulated. A detached house built in Britain, even under today's modern standards, consumes nearly 20 per cent. more energy than the equivalent home built in Denmark. Perhaps we should appoint an energy conservation tsar—we would have to clear it with the Russians first—who could massively raise public consciousness on the issue.
	If security of supply means looking at what we can promote domestically, I add my voice to the strong case that has already been made for our deep-mined coal industry. Some 33 per cent. of our electricity is generated by coal, and 60 per cent. of that coal is imported. It is reckoned that in Britain we have 200 years of coal reserves, but only 40 years of gas reserves. We have used only 15 to 20 per cent. of our coal reserves in the past 100 years. As has been pointed out, carbon sequestration and underground gasification offer the prospect of clean coal technology, and it is much further advanced than people would have us believe.
	There is a need for investment in the coal industry and we need to take a long-term view. I welcome the £35 million in grant aid from the Government to demonstrate the possibilities of carbon abatement technology, and I understand that it will come on stream in April this year for some four years. However, more operating and investment aid for coal should be considered. At present, the Government provide 30 per cent. of the cost of development work and the coal producer has to find the other 70 per cent. The current investment aid fund has been used up, but banks will not lend against the short-term contracts that are placed by the generators with the coal suppliers. In the United States, coal suppliers have 25-year contracts. Why cannot we have them in this country?
	Coal mining is a long-term, capital-intensive business, requiring some form of Government intervention—that might not be popular with some—in the current structure of the market to ensure continued supplies of UK deep-mined coal. Loans, or loan guarantees, secured on future coal sales are a possible answer, and I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up.
	I accept that we need an energy mix and should not rely on one particular fuel. However, I desperately want the UK deep-mined coal industry to be part of that mix. Action is needed urgently, because we now have only eight collieries and we lack the critical mass that the industry needs to retain the experience and skill and preserve it for the future. It may be an unpopular suggestion, but I believe that there is no future for the coal industry unless it is brought back into public ownership.
	I question the 2003 energy review which concluded that the Government would not intervene in the market except in extreme circumstances. Markets are not infallible, and indeed they often tend towards short-term thinking. There is a role for Government and I hope that this review will confirm that.

Peter Luff: I suppose that every Select Committee Chairman thinks that the subject his Committee covers is the most important facing the country, but there is a strong case for saying that the subject of today's debate is one of the very most important. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will accept that I am not being partisan when I say that I am very disappointed by the length of time available for this debate. Three hours is not enough, as the ridiculously short limit on Back Benchers' speeches and the competition to speak demonstrate. It falls short of the assurances that we were given about a full day's debate on this subject.
	There was a very good debate on the issue yesterday in the acting Westminster Hall, introduced by the hon.   Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim   Sheridan). I am sorry that I was not able to attend, but I have read the report of it. I was struck by the considerable consensus in that debate, which we have seen again today, about the basic issues confronting us, especially the need for diversity of provision and—an issue I wish to emphasise—the protection of skills in the different energy sectors.
	I have two initial thoughts. It is said to be a Chinese curse to wish that someone live in interesting times, but this is one of the most fascinating intellectual, technical, economic, environmental and geopolitical issues of our time. I am sure—from speaking to them privately—that Ministers relish the challenge they face. The trouble is that media coverage and public debate tend to be in inverse proportion to the seriousness of issues because the very complexity that we face in this issue tends to put people off. Sometimes, if we are honest, we are distracted from the most pressing issues by the interest in other less important issues.
	I am glad that the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon) mentioned the actions of Russia and Gazprom, which have done us in an incalculable favour. Digby Jones was, if we are being honest, being a bit alarmist towards the end of last year, and Ministers were probably right to be cautious in their response, but energy supplies are now extremely precarious and becoming more so. Until this winter is over, and it is not over yet because British winters can easily last until Easter, we cannot breathe easily. Whatever the weather, the Russians have not only done us a political favour by reopening the debate and forcing the issue up the agenda; they are also moving us closer to a proper wider European energy market wherein prices are rather closer to true market conditions.
	Perhaps the Russians picked on Ukraine partly for political reasons, but they were selling their gas far too cheaply, and the movement to market prices will enable countries such as Ukraine to take more rational decisions about how they use energy and force them to close their windows in the winter. The growing concerns about energy prices and security of supply are forcing a much more mature debate in this country as well, as we have seen here this afternoon. The Russian action forced the issue right into the headlines. I am told that my Committee's grilling of the Minister for Energy on 31 October was the Christmas highlight of the Parliament Channel, with frequent repeat showings throughout the recess. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, as I do, because sadly there is no appearance fee on the Parliament Channel.
	The February 2003 White Paper struck many of us as rather disappointing, and it is welcome that a review is under way and being conducted with some urgency. As for its conclusion, I am not sure what early summer means, but I hope that the Minister can stick to that deadline. It took quite a long time from rumour, leak, briefing and a declaration of intention to actual announcement of the review, but I am glad that we have got it.
	These are issues that, as previous speakers have said, have concerned the Trade and Industry Committee for many years now. In the last Parliament, there were two major reports, in early 2002 on the security of energy supply and early last year on fuel prices, under the  excellent chairmanship of Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan. As this is the first time that I have spoken as Chairman of the Committee, I would like to pay a special tribute to Lord O'Neill. He was a fine Chairman and he is sorely missed; I am glad that he is still benefiting us with his expertise in another place.
	It will come as no surprise to the Minister if I tell him that we meet next week to consider how we will conduct our parallel inquiry into the Government's review. Already in this Parliament we have looked at gas in a report published last month, to which the Government responded today. I had hoped to speak rather earlier in the debate and draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Government have responded to the report—not something that was put on the record in the Deputy Speaker's opening statement—and that the response is available in the Vote Office.
	It is a very good response. In fact, I go so far as to say that it is one of the most exceptionally helpful, thoughtful and constructive responses I have known in my time as Select Committee Chairman, in this case and as Chairman of the Agriculture Committee. It treats all our recommendations with great seriousness and allays my concern in many areas. It makes encouraging noises about those people, other than the elderly, who suffer from fuel poverty. On industry, it says some helpful things about how it intends to help big users, and I am glad about that.
	I have in my constituency a big brick manufacturer, Baggeridge Brick. We must recognise that the demand response of which the Government's response to our report speaks means that the capacity is not there, and brick factories have been closing. Hanson has already closed a quarter of its factories for the next month, and Baggeridge Brick has written to me to say:
	"Unless something is done quickly to stabilise the gas price then the only possible outcome can be further job losses in the UK manufacturing sector and increased import penetration of building materials from Northern Europe."
	That, I think, is right.
	The question of European liberalisation is one of the other big themes of our report, and it has been a big theme of this debate. We all want it, and I think that I join in the criticism that not enough has been achieved during the presidency, but it is a very difficult thing to achieve. Can the European market be liberalised in the short term without requiring Governments and the private sector to tear up perfectly legal contracts? That is a legal challenge for us. Liberalisation of the European market is high on the Commission's agenda.
	When we went to Brussels before Christmas I was very impressed with what I heard from officials there, but one cannot argue with the fact that the UK will struggle to buy gas in Europe unless either it is able to set up long-term contracts similar to the ones that already exist there with gas producers, so undermining development of the real gas market to which we all aspire, or European countries voluntarily, or as a result of being forced by the European Union, surrender their long-term contracts and trust themselves to the competitive market. These are difficult issues. I had hoped to say more about storage, but it has already been extensively covered, and I welcome both the Government's response to our report and the Secretary of State's helpful opening remarks.
	The last energy policy White Paper in 2003 may have been disappointing in some respects, but its goals remain valid: cutting carbon dioxide emissions, maintaining the reliability of energy supplies, promoting competitive markets in the UK and beyond and ensuring that every home is adequately and affordably heated. Perhaps we can now have a rational debate in the context of the Government's energy review, where prejudices for and against any one energy source—including, I must say to the Liberal Democrats, nuclear power—are abandoned for hard fact in the face of compelling reality.
	I will not prejudice my Committee's work, but I am sure that we shall conclude, as the House has, that over-dependence on imported gas from countries with less than perfect political stability is a bad thing; that renewables and clean coal technology have a crucial role to play—come back coal, all is forgiven; that energy efficiency needs to be improved to combat climate change, not so much in the industrial sector but in the domestic and transport sectors; and that the emissions trading scheme, which sets the price of carbon, will have a crucial role in deciding whether the private sector can invest in nuclear power. We may even approach consensus on the nuclear question, although carbon neutrality issues are much more complex than they seem: how much energy goes into mining uranium, or into building nuclear power stations or wind turbines?
	This is one of the most important debates that the House will hold in this Parliament or the next. It does not end today; it merely begins. But at least in part, thanks to the apparently reckless actions of Gazprom, it may be better informed and more urgent—as it needs to be.

Joan Ruddock: Unlike the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), I warmly welcomed the energy White Paper in 2003. For the first time, the Government acknowledged something that many of us had held true for a long time: we cannot separate energy generation and use from the environmental consequences.
	The White Paper offered, in a global context, the way ahead for the UK for a generation. It showed an exciting prospect—facing the challenge of achieving a low-carbon economy—and pointed to important firsts, such as the first straw-fired power station in Cambridgeshire, the first commercially operational wave power station on the isle of Islay and the rapid development of wind turbines. None of the annual reports that were promised and have been issued since then—the last one was in July 2005—has indicated any need for a major change of direction. So what has happened?
	Members and Ministers have cited climate change, but the White Paper stated that our first challenge was environmental and that climate change is real. It accepted the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution for cuts of 60 per cent. in CO 2 by 2050. Today, the Secretary of State cited the more rapid decline in North sea gas and net importation, but that, too, was anticipated in the White Paper. It noted that the second challenge would be the decline in indigenous energy supplies and that we would be a net importer of gas in 2006. My right hon. Friend spoke about the decommissioning of our nuclear reactors. That is a fact. The White Paper said that probably only one nuclear plant would be open by 2025.
	The importation of gas was recognised; the White Paper said that we would need additional supplies of both piped and liquefied gas from a range of sources, and noted that diversity of gas supply would be important. All the key issues were flagged up. The goals set to cut emissions, retain reliability of energy supply, promote competition and ensure that every house was adequately heated were all thought to be achievable without new nuclear build.
	Nuclear is neither clean nor carbon-free. It produces highly toxic waste, which other Members have mentioned. It offers no solution to the problem of climate change. In a life cycle analysis, from the mining of uranium through to the decommissioning of the plant, nuclear power is in no sense carbon-free and in the worst-case analysis is just as dirty as a gas-fired station.
	We need to examine more carefully the nuclear contribution to our energy needs. The debate has really been about electricity generation. Primary energy sources, however, show us that gas is 40 per cent., oil just over 30 per cent., coal 16 per cent., but nuclear is only 7 per cent. Transport uses 35 per cent. of our energy supply. Our domestic use is 30 per cent. Industry uses just 21 per cent. So nuclear power may be a significant source of electricity production, but not many of us heat our homes with electricity or drive cars powered by that source. The very sectors that have accounted for the greatest increase in demand—our home heating and the use of our cars—and created the worst pollution are not being served by the nuclear industry.
	I suggest that the costs, the risks, the development time and the production of radioactive waste associated with new nuclear build are all far out of proportion to the potential emissions savings. Furthermore, the argument that new nuclear build is essential to meeting our CO 2 targets is an extremely dangerous one in the international context. The UK accounts for just 2 per cent. of global CO 2 emissions. We all know that the greatest future contribution to and threat from CO 2 emissions comes from China, India and Brazil and such developing economies.

Quentin Davies: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Joan Ruddock: I am sorry, I cannot.
	If we cannot cope with solving our CO 2 emissions without new nuclear build, what does that say for countries such as China? One new dirty coal power station is being built in China every week. Are we to suggest that China goes wholly nuclear to deal with its energy needs and its CO 2 emissions? That is absolute nonsense. How long would uranium last if China did so?
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) in particular has said, the answer clearly lies in the clean coal technologies and, as many Labour Members have said, in developing renewables. That is the way that we help the emerging economies and the least-developed countries of the world. If we are serious about our global leadership—I believe that we are—that is what we must do. I thought that that was what we were doing.
	The second report on the White Paper was absolutely packed with positive achievements. The framework treaty with Norway will ensure that up to 20 per cent. of UK future gas demand comes from that country. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) spoke about unreliable countries and cited Algeria as one of them, but Algeria has provided energy to Europe for 40 years without significant interruption. We have increased the renewables obligation to more than 15 per cent. by 2050. We have doubled the energy efficiency commitments, by making a £2 billion investment. We have exceeded the Warm Front scheme targets. We are developing carbon abatement technologies. We have taken action and have plans for a range of renewables. We have new buildings regulations. We have an energy efficiency fund. We could do all those things better and we could do more of them.
	I particularly welcome the energy review, by which we can find out how to do better with the renewables obligations. Opposition Members may be surprised that France generates more electricity from renewables than we do, as do Germany and Spain. There is so much that we could do. We could raise our building standards to the highest that operate elsewhere in Europe. The borough council in my constituency uses only green energy. Why does not every local authority use only green energy? A state-of-the-art, low-energy school has been built in my constituency. Why is every school not built to that standard?
	I tell Ministers that we must not lose our nerve. Nuclear energy production is now an old technology and, like all old technologies, it leads to environmental degradation. It is not the answer. We can do more on renewables. We can do much more on energy efficiency, which is responsible, and we can reduce demand without reducing our lifestyles. The energy review needs to be predicated on the basis that this country and the globe need environmentally sustainable development, which needs to be at the heart of the review.

Richard Ottaway: Much as I was looking forward to the prospect of giving lengthy advice to my constituent—the Minister for Energy—in the interests of brevity I will keep my contribution short. I am not alone in finding the Russian Government's decision to cut off gas supplies to Ukraine chilling, and the implications are quite substantial. In truth, being dependent for our energy supplies on a country that is prepared to cut off those supplies will emasculate our foreign policy. In certain circumstances, our foreign policy could be affected by dependency on imported energy from risky nations.
	That leads me to a conclusion with which the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) will strongly disagree—that we must greatly increase our dependence on nuclear power. To me, the question is not nuclear versus coal but nuclear versus gas from risky sources. I am a strong believer in nuclear power. The French derive 75 per cent. of their energy from nuclear and 15 per cent. from hydroelectric, so 90 per cent. of their energy comes from their own sources. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies): at least 50 per cent. of our energy should come from nuclear sources.

Edward Vaizey: One of the points that Labour Members have refused to hear by refusing to accept any interventions is that we have already lost the global leadership debate. They want to stop nuclear power, but India has already committed to getting 25 per cent. of its energy from nuclear sources.

Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that strong point. Both India and China are to use a mix of nuclear and coal generation. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford wants to see clean coal technology; I do too, but not to the total exclusion of nuclear power.
	My next point is on the lack of an investment structure in this country. Several investment projects are on hold because their promoters cannot envisage proper payback for the investment needed. Building a new generating station requires a 30-year payback period. At present we have the volatility of a spot market, which we have seen fall to a very low level in the past couple of years. No senior executive will commit to a 30-year payback unless he can foresee a steady cash flow that will pay for the station. The previous Minister for Energy promised to look into encouraging long-term investment in generating capacity. I hope that the present Minister will take up the issue.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) made a very good point about co-firing. Co-firing is the burning of biomass in a coal-fired power station—10 per cent. biomass to 90 per cent. coal—and the biomass qualifies for the renewables obligation. The practice has been successful, and I believe that the Department of Trade and Industry is sponsoring research into how to achieve a biomass burn of more than 10 per cent. Burning 10 per cent. biomass means 10 per cent. less CO 2 emissions going up the chimney, so it is a good thing. However, in 2002 it was decided that the 25 per cent. cap on the contribution to renewables would be reduced to 10 per cent. in April this year. At the time that did not look like a stupid decision because gas and electricity prices and economics were very different, but the situation has changed. It now seems fairly bizarre to have decided to reduce the amount of biomass that can be burned in co-firing at a time when all the indicators suggest that we should be increasing the amount.
	I wish the Minister for Energy well in his review. I believe that the suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) have merit. The truth is that we have a risky road ahead of us. The Minister has difficult decisions to make.

John Robertson: We have been having an interesting debate. We have a pro-nuclear element on the Conservative Benches and an anti-nuclear element on the Labour Benches, so today I feel somewhat embarrassed to be standing on the Government side of the House, given that I am chair of the all-party group on nuclear energy. It will not take a genius to work out whether I am in favour of nuclear energy.
	In this short contribution, I should like to take account of what has been said today and advance an argument about why we are debating this issue and why we should not discount one form of energy in favour of another. I was particularly disappointed by the Secretary of State's contribution—the Minister may wish to respond, either now or in his winding-up speech—as it appears that we have already conceded that we will import gas to meet our future energy needs. That is a great mistake. The country needs to look at its energy needs and try to provide its own energy. If that means that we cut gas imports, so be it. We do not need to put all our eggs in one basket and go down the nuclear route. We do not necessarily need new build, but we should replace our existing power stations. The efficiency of the new power stations will increase the electricity available from nuclear.

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend has misunderstood the position. In the consultation document we say that unless things change there will be a heavy reliance on gas imports, and we ask what the implications are. That is not necessarily what will actually happen.

John Robertson: I thank the Minister for that correction. I am pleased that that is the case, but it is not what I thought I heard earlier.
	I have visited Finland and Canada in the past few years, and have seen what is being done with waste in Finland. I accept concerns among hon. Members and, indeed, the general public about waste. Who knows? Perhaps the waste of today is the energy of tomorrow. We need to put that waste in a secure place so that it is safe but can be retrieved if we need it for future energy needs in the years and perhaps centuries to come. We should therefore not adopt a short-sighted approach.
	We need the right mix. Clean coal technology is an excellent way forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said that it is here today, and I hope that that is the case, as we could make a great deal of money in China and we could sell the technology to other countries. We must pursue that approach. I was pleased to hear earlier this week that China and Britain are working together to try to promote clean coal technology in future, and I hope that that is successful. Unlike some hon. Members who spoke about renewables, I believe that we should put money into them, as we do not know what we will need in future. Usage has increased. How many households nowadays have more than one television? We used to crowd round the television and eat our tea, but today the kids go to their room, which is heated by its own fire, to play with their PlayStation and watch television. I do not know how we stop them doing so. Hon. Members have talked about increasing household energy efficiency. That has been tried in many countries, but it has never provided enough savings to spread the benefits across the whole nation.
	Gas reserves in the North sea are going down, but they are still significant, and businesses should use them to provide heating or to supply gas-related products. However, perhaps we should think about cutting gas usage rather than increasing it. As for costs, which were mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), I accept that electricity is expensive, which is why people use gas. Oil, too, was popular when it was cheap. If gas prices keep increasing gas will become expensive. It is a finite substance and it will not be available for ever. There may be a run on gas in 10 or 20 years' time, but supplies will not last for ever. The House and hon. Members should think not just about today's generation but about tomorrow's. It is important that we think a few years down the line.
	I know that other Members wish to speak, but I want to mention a briefing that I received from the Institution of Electrical Engineers, supported by the Energy Institute, the Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. On the disposal of nuclear waste, the briefing stated:
	"New nuclear build to maintain existing capacity would add only in the order of 10 per cent. to existing waste."
	Some newspaper reports have said that that is not true, but it is. To discount the reprocessing of nuclear waste is to stretch the truth a bit far.
	The report from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management is due soon. I hope it will propose sound and reasoned ways of disposing of our waste. Other countries have gone down that road. The report from the Canadian body chaired by Elizabeth Dowdswell, who is well known in waste management circles, recommended the same solution as has been adopted in Finland—deep burial. Once the Americans have dealt with the litigation that has arisen, they plan to use a similar method in the Yucca mountains.
	That is not necessarily the right way for us to proceed. We must remember that the waste is here now. It is not the new waste produced in future that will be the biggest problem. As I said, we can cater for that. Irradiated waste is already produced by our hospitals. Do we not want people to have X-rays or scans as part of their medical treatment? We need a place to store such waste, as well as nuclear waste. I hope CORWM will identify options for storage.
	I have crammed a lot into a short space of time. The UK needs a balanced energy policy. No doubt the Minister shares that belief. We should exclude nothing. I do not want to be part of a party that is blinkered about any kind of energy policy. I will listen to everyone's views. I particularly mention the Liberals and the Scottish National party, who have already declared that they do not want nuclear under any circumstances. That is backward-looking and would not encourage me to look towards such a party for government.

Michael Weir: I am surprised at the last comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson). I remind him that his party is in government with the Liberals in Scotland.
	The House will not be surprised to learn that the situation in the North sea is of particular concern to me and my party. I pointed out earlier that the existing gasfields west of Shetland were not being exploited, partly because of the tax regime. I was not encouraged by the response from the Secretary of State, which we have heard so often before. We were told that last time the Chancellor changed North sea taxation, he had created a stable tax regime. We are told now that there will be no more changes, but that is two years after he allegedly created a stable tax regime.
	Security of energy supply does not mean that we necessarily have hands-on control of every part of our energy supply, but it does mean that we maximise what we have of our own. It makes sense for us to maximise the use of the gas in the North sea. After all, the dispute between Russia and Ukraine can hardly have come as a surprise. The use of energy as an economic weapon is well tried. Some of us are old enough to remember the oil price shocks of the 1970s.
	We should be cynical about what is being said about the North sea. Papers released over the Christmas recess show that what was effectively a conspiracy was hatched some 30 years ago to deny the true level of oil and gas in the North sea and prevent Scotland from moving towards independence. At that time, we were told that if Scotland achieved independence, we would lose the entitlement to supplies in much of the central North sea, but the documents show that that was totally untrue, because Scotland would have been entitled to at least 80 per cent. of the oil. The documents also note that under the proposals advanced by the SNP, the life of the oil fields could have been extended to 100 years as opposed to the current situation.
	Although the Minister for Energy has said that up to 80 per cent. of the UK's gas supply could come from abroad by 2020, that need not be the case in Scotland, which produces much more gas than we actually use. The Minister has said that the outcome of the energy review has not been decided, but the Prime Minister seems to be going out of his way to suggest that the outcome will be new nuclear power stations, which Scotland neither needs nor wants. At the moment, Scotland has 60 per cent. of Europe's oil reserves, more than 12 per cent. of Europe's gas reserves, nearly 70 per cent. of the UK's coal reserves—8 per cent. of the EU's total coal reserves—a quarter of the EU's potential for wind power, 10 per cent. of the EU's potential for wave power and 25 per cent. of the EU's potential for tidal power. A report commissioned by the Scottish Executive in 2001 found that renewable energy could produce six times Scotland's current electricity capacity. Indeed, offshore wind power alone could meet Scotland's needs two and a half times over, and the Pentland firth has been described as the Saudi Arabia of tidal power.
	The Minister will not be surprised that I am going to raise the question of transmission charges with him again. Although we have heard a great deal about decentralised energy supply, which I support, the reality under the present regime is that if we are to invest in renewable power, we must get the transmission charging regime right. Scotland's potential for renewable power is being undermined by the regime imposed by Ofgem, which makes renewable power more expensive to produce in Scotland than, for example, in the south of England, yet there is no demand in the south of England and a great deal of demand in Scotland. To be fair to the Minister, he has announced that he will change the regime for the Scottish islands, but he has not done so for the highlands of Scotland. For the umpteenth time, I ask him to reconsider the matter.
	We have heard a lot about the possible liberalisation of the gas market within the European Union. At the outset, the Minister said that gas in the UK is not expensive in European terms, but I refer hon. Members to Ofgem's evidence to the Trade and Industry Committee, which probed the issue. In response to my question on the difference in energy prices in the UK and Europe, Ofgem told me that it had carried out a
	"'gas probe', which identified that effectively UK customers had paid an additional £3.8 billion in the 2003–04 period, and we equally identified that between 50 and 60 per cent. of that was due to the oil indexation which European gas contracts have".
	The difference between the very liberalised market in the UK and the much more regulated market in the European Union results in a real cost to consumers of gas.
	I was interested to note that at the Hampton Court summit at the end of the UK's presidency of the EU, the Prime Minister suddenly seemed to convert to the idea of an integrated European market, which the Government had resisted for a long time, including a common energy policy, a pan-European electricity grid and shared reserves of stored gas. I am sure that the European Commissioner is grabbing that with both hands. I understand that proposals will be presented by the end of the year. If that means a liberalisation of the market on the continent and a reduction of prices in the UK, it might be welcome, but we wait to see whether that will be the outcome of any such European policy.
	Scotland has great potential as an energy producer. Scotland could be energy independent, but the problem is that it is not politically independent. Political independence would mean real potential for energy to power the Scottish economy as well as the potential to export.

Charles Hendry: We have had an excellent debate, but it is a tragedy that we had far too little time for it. It is sad that we were confined to three hours. The debate provided plenty of heat, power and light and I am sorry that we were deprived of outstanding speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr.   Bone) and for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Doran), for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Joan Walley) and for Copeland (Mr. Reed).
	The debate began with a speech by the Secretary of State, which he made in his normal balanced and reasonable manner. If he were not a politician, he would make a great country GP, able to tell people difficult things in a way that made them sound pleasant. He started by saying that this country was in a strong position. That must have been the press release, because when we got to the detail, he started to admit the genuine position: we are failing to meet our targets on renewables, and he is concerned about the extent to which reserves have declined. He admitted that prices have been rising through the roof, accepted that, nuclear power provision will be largely out of action in 20 years and made a gloomy assessment of the geopolitical challenges that confront us.
	The Opposition welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to introduce legislation to create new offshore gas storage facilities. We support that in principle and I urge the Minister for Energy to say in his winding-up speech that it will be introduced as quickly as possible.
	The extent of the Secretary of State's lack of concern about our increasing reliance on imported energy was worrying. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said in his opening comments that, by 2020, 60 per cent. of electricity generation in this country would come from gas and that 80 per cent. of that could be imported. That means that half our electricity supply would depend on imported gas. I find that worrying.
	The need for diversity ran through the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who chairs the Select Committee, admirably set out the choices for that diversity. Everyone agrees about the need for it, but no one agrees about the exact balance.

Charles Walker: To make use of the last line of my speech, does my hon. Friend agree that we need a diverse energy supply that is based on a robust and resilient domestic capability?

Charles Hendry: If that was the last line, it is a shame that we did not hear the rest. I agree that we need to ensure that we have diversity and that we must also build on our inherent strengths.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) put the case for coal eloquently.

Andrew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Charles Hendry: Although the right hon. Gentleman has been present throughout our proceedings, I shall not give way because our time is so limited.
	The case for coal was also made in an excellent speech by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and by the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon). The case for nuclear power was eloquently and passionately put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), my hon. Friends the Members for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) and for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson). The case against it was equally eloquently and passionately made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). The Liberal Democrats popped in to say that they wanted lots of research into nuclear power but, having done the research, they would do nothing about it.
	There is a need for urgent decisions to avoid a crisis. The hon. Member for Barnsley, Central made the case for that clearly. He quoted from the White Paper of three years ago and said that we have known about the problems for a long time, but, three years on, we are still talking. He also expressed his concern at what he saw as an anti-coal DTI. I want to assure him that, as we consider the energy review, we will welcome representations from him and his colleagues about the case for coal, because we are genuinely open-minded on the issue, especially as we are now considering exciting new technologies such as clean coal and co-generation.

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Charles Hendry: I will in a moment.
	My other concern is the extent of the Government's complacency on these matters, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough might wish to touch on that issue as well.

Peter Bone: Ofgem has told the Trade and Industry Committee that the forward electricity price in Europe is €50 per megawatt-hour, whereas it is €80 in the UK. Does my hon. Friend think that the European Union is letting us down?

Charles Hendry: There is clearly a tremendous difference between energy prices in this country and elsewhere in Europe, and the Government missed the opportunity to do more to address that issue during our presidency of the European Union last year. Domestic and business customers are hurting now. Domestic prices have risen by 14 per cent. in just one year. Domestic electricity prices are 27 per cent. higher than they were in 2003, which is adding £51 a year to the average domestic electricity bill. Gas prices are 40 per cent. higher than they were three years ago, adding £111 a year to the average domestic gas bill. A survey by the Engineering Employers Federation found that gas was 47 per cent. more expensive, and electricity 34 per cent. more expensive, for energy users than a year ago. Those increases are having serious consequences for businesses, particularly those in the manufacturing industry.
	Towards the end of last year, Michael Ankers, the chief executive of the Construction Products Association, wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. In pointing out the consequences of these price increases, he said:
	"Over the last week alone one company with a turnover of £3.5 million saw their gas cost increase by £400,000."
	He concluded:
	"The problem facing industry is here and now, and what is really alarming is to learn that the country is 'awash with gas'—as Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told the Commons last week—at a time when prices have reached the levels they have. One can only conclude from this that gas supply is being deliberately restricted to keep prices high, and this suspicion is reinforced by the news that the inter-connector pipeline between Britain and the continent is only running at 65–75 per cent. capacity despite the enormous price discrepancy with countries in Europe."
	Businesses are hurting as we speak.
	A further aspect of the Government's complacency is that they have put off the big decisions that need to be made. By 2015, coal-fired power stations currently producing 13 GW of electricity will be obliged to close. The closure of nuclear power stations will remove a further 8 GW of capacity. In 10 years' time—taking into account a projected increase in demand of 40 per cent. of our present capacity—some 32 GW of capacity will have been closed. To avoid shortages in 10 years' time, we need new projects every year that will produce 5 GW of capacity, yet not a single large project was started last year. Will the Minister tell us what his predictions are for the years ahead, and how many new large projects are in the pipeline?
	The Minister also needs to tell us what the Government are going to do, in concrete terms, to make the EU co-operate more widely. Ofgem has said that there are serious malfunctions in the energy practices of other European countries, and this is costing the United Kingdom £10 billion a year in higher charges. Why are the Government not doing more to address this? And why is energy so much more expensive here than elsewhere in the EU? We remain the largest gas producer in the EU, and we have fully liberalised markets, yet we still pay so much more.
	Why is our storage capacity so low? This clearly poses a threat to the continuity of supply. We have gas storage capacity for just 11 days, compared with the EU average of 55 days. How many large new projects does the Minister expect to start in the coming years?
	The Government are right to initiate an energy review to examine how we shall meet our long-term energy needs, meet out environmental goals, and reduce our reliance on imported sources of energy. We agree with all that, and we shall work with the Government to get the right long-term answers. The problems are here and now, however. Domestic customers and businesses are hurting—they have been hurting for months, and all that they have heard from the Government are complacent platitudes that we are awash with gas and that there is no structural problem. Until today, the House has been denied the chance to debate such issues.
	My final plea to the Minister is that he must involve the country. He should not restrict the review to experts in the DTI, industry and academia. There is huge expertise in the House, as we have heard today, and huge enthusiasm in the country at large to be involved in the debate. We will manage to get energy conservation only if the public buy into it. Above all, we need them to buy into the solutions put forward in the energy review. It is a great tragedy that the debate has been so curtailed, but the Minister has many answers that we look forward to hearing.

Malcolm Wicks: I agree that we have had an excellent debate with some significant contributions. I welcome the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) to his new post on the shadow Front Bench, as I do the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan).
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State observed in his opening remarks, energy has dominated newspaper front pages over the past couple of months. Against a backdrop of declining indigenous energy supplies, about which we have heard a lot, increasing global energy prices and wider geopolitical uncertainty, as well as the concern about climate change, energy is rightly on all the agendas that count. If Members will forgive me for not name-checking every contribution—I want to deal with the debate in broader terms—we have seen that reflected in some significant speeches from both sides of the House.

Quentin Davies: Will the Minister take an early opportunity after the debate to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and convey to him the strong feelings expressed on both sides of the Chamber this afternoon, to which I hope that he will add his own private views, which he might not want to express publicly, about the shortness of time that has been available to Parliament to deal with this strategically important matter? It is a disgrace.

Malcolm Wicks: I am sure that the Leader of the House will note that point. Only yesterday, coal was debated in Westminster Hall, and next week we are discussing civil nuclear energy. As every available Select Committee is asking me to give evidence, I feel adequately scrutinised.

Andrew Smith: Would not the Opposition have a somewhat stronger case in the debate that we all want if the Front Bench speech that we have just heard had offered one iota of an Opposition policy?

Malcolm Wicks: I was thinking of my London School of Economics tutor's more generous comment on my first essay—"A good start to a difficult subject." I thought that that caught the ambiguity rather well.
	We have heard how North sea supplies are declining, but I emphasise—I agree with the Liberal Democrat spokesman on this matter—that we should not exaggerate that point. There is still a great deal of oil and gas in the North sea and other seas around our shores, and it is a vital British industry. Nevertheless, Britain's transition towards becoming a net gas importer is under way. Concerns about tight energy supplies during that transition period, together with other factors such as high fossil fuel prices and high global demand, have collectively led to very high industrial gas prices.
	I will not debate the issue of prices now, but I think that it is a genuinely more complicated issue than some have claimed. Heavy users of gas are suffering price-wise, particularly when they buy in the short term, which is a commercial judgment for them. Many businesses and domestic suppliers have enjoyed relatively lower prices than in France, Germany and elsewhere on the continent, however. Those are the facts, but I understand why various colleagues do not   want the facts to get in the way of a good argument.
	Of course we recognise that the recent price spike has created those tough operating conditions. I have met representatives from many industries, such as the chemicals, metals, glass and ceramics industries, and we understand their current difficulty and pain. We are leaving no stone unturned and are working closely with representatives of those industries to mitigate the situation and reduce its impact wherever possible. Long before this winter—in early spring, before I held my present post, and in the summer—we were meeting key stakeholders to discuss issues relating to supply and demand. We met representatives of the North sea oil and gas industry, and emphasised that we needed to be in the best possible position in regard to repairs, spares, and partnership between companies so that we could achieve maximum output this summer. I have met supply companies, the Confederation of British Industry, the energy intensive users group and many others to ensure that we are as well prepared as possible during a difficult transition period.
	As we have been reminded, however, this is not just about industry and business. Rising prices have an impact on vulnerable domestic householders, especially the elderly, who are physiologically less able than many others to cope with cold conditions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown) made some important points about that. I believe that our record in government is good: more than 4 million households have been lifted out of fuel poverty since 1997, and the Warm Front scheme has helped more than 1 million vulnerable households to heat their homes more affordably. That is why the Chancellor increased funding for the scheme in his pre-Budget report. A scheme that has helped more than 1 million households is an important scheme.
	In the pre-Budget report, we also heard about the extension of the winter fuel payments scheme during the lifetime of the current Parliament. That, too, is a popular and important scheme, which provides vital cheques just before Christmas. Those over 60 will receive £200, while others will receive £300. Measures such as pension credit—initiated by the Department for Work and Pensions, in which the Secretary of State and I used to serve—also concentrate resources on vulnerable people.
	We have heard a good deal about the new infrastructure. The Secretary of State mentioned it today. Increasing supply will be key to reducing both industrial and domestic prices. We have also heard about the new LNG terminal at the Isle of Grain. Liquefied natural gas will become more important in the future. We have heard about the doubling of the interconnector import capacity, and about new storage capacity at Humbly Grove.
	There are 10 potential new import projects in the pipeline—an unfortunate and not deliberate pun—which could expand the UK's import capacity by more than 1 billion cu m per year by the end of the decade. That is roughly equivalent to the UK's current total annual demand for gas. The Langeled pipeline from Norway could supply up to 16 per cent., and the new BBL interconnector could supply a further 10 per cent. of UK peak demand. Both those supplies would begin in December 2006. A further upgrading of the interconnector to treble its previous capacity could supply up to 15 per cent. of peak UK demand. Two major LNG import terminals are being constructed in Pembrokeshire, which could in due course provide for more than 20 per cent. of our annual consumption needs.
	Supply has increased and will increase. The new infrastructure announced to the House today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will ensure that as we become a net importer of gas, we will have a robust regime in place to facilitate gas import unloading and storage in the UK.
	The slower pace of liberalisation in other EU states is clearly limiting those benefits, so the UK is pressing hard for full liberalisation. I take the partisan points that have been made, but I think the record will show that the European Commission is taking tough action to pursue liberalisation. During our presidency there was a meeting of EU Energy Ministers, and there were two significant reports from the Commission. I am proud of what has been done, and those who take a view on it would do well to read the record.
	Let me say something about the international dimension. As we make the transition towards becoming a net importer, external international factors—some were highlighted by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—become more important. We have heard about the impact of rising energy demand in India and China, and the line connecting hurricanes Katrina and Rita with what has happened in the UK reminds us that international events produce at least a ripple, and sometimes something more serious, on our shores. We need to continue to have a strongly diversified energy system in respect of the different parts of the world from which we import energy, and of the different energy sources that will power Britain long into the 21st century.

Dennis Skinner: We need diversification not only abroad but here in Britain. I shall be next door to Haworth colliery at the weekend. Will I be able to give them the good news that the money is on the way?

Malcolm Wicks: My hon. Friend knows that we are still considering that issue, but we will respond as soon as possible.
	It is for all the reasons that I have outlined that an energy review is now required. We are conducting that review and as the Secretary of State said, we will publish a consultation document on 23 January. We need a significant debate on this issue in the House and among interest groups and academics, but I agree that there must also be a public debate. We face some very serious decisions and our goal has to be clear: guaranteeing energy security, while safeguarding our planet from global warming. That is the strategic goal. It is a challenging and ambitious one and it raises a range of issues—issues that Members have debated in the Chamber today. It is important that—
	It being one minute past Six o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a written parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman), the Deputy Prime Minister admits a serious error. He states that he has
	"Issued this answer . . . to correct the record and to fully apologise to the House".
	Could you guide me on this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which involves a great deal of money and the non-payment of council tax on the part of a Minister who has of course presided over a rise in council tax? Do you believe that a written answer is a sufficient apology to the House, or should the Deputy Prime Minister come here in person to apologise?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is the first that I have heard of the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises. It is now on the record and other people will have to make up their own minds about how important it is, and how it must be dealt with.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Ordered,
	That the National Health Service (General Dental Services Contracts) Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3361), dated 6th December 2005 and the National Health Service (Personal Dental Services Agreements) Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No. 3373), dated 7th December 2005, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Watson.]

PETITION
	 — 
	Animal Welfare Bill

Mark Todd: I present a petition from residents of South Derbyshire and others.
	The petition states:
	The Petitioners welcome the introduction of the new Animal Welfare Bill.
	The Petitioners note that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other animal welfare organisations say that they are "delighted" with the Bill and in particular with the duty of care.
	The Petitioners believe that the British people strongly support plans to protect animals.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote to pass the Animal Welfare Bill and to outlaw the vile practice of cruel sports such as cockfighting and dog fighting.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

CARE OF THE DYING

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Watson.]

Angela Browning: I have brought this debate on the care of the dying to the Floor of the House for two reasons. First, I am concerned about some recent constituency casework. The second, more specific issue is the Government's anticipated White Paper on health and social care outside of hospital.
	In discussing this very sensitive issue, a lot of emphasis is placed on where people die and on enabling such people and their families to choose where that end takes place. In response to a parliamentary question that I tabled in December, the Office for National Statistics identified the last four years' records on where people die. It is clear that the vast majority die in hospital; indeed, in 2004, some 57 per cent. died in hospital. Approximately 5 per cent. died in hospices, some 18 per cent. died in their own home, and 16 per cent. died in residential or nursing homes. It is clear from the past four years' statistics that under each of those headings there is a degree of flatlining.
	We often hear that, naturally, people would choose to die at home—in familiar surroundings, in their own bed, and ideally with their loved ones around them. I think that that is probably what we would all choose if we could focus long enough on our own demise. As I said, this is a sensitive and uncomfortable subject.
	I am concerned about the level of support that would be available to people who choose to die at home. There is a dilemma, which I want to flag up in advance of the forthcoming White Paper, about not only where people die but how they die—the circumstances of their death.
	I pay tribute to all the people all over the country, professionals as well as those in the voluntary sector, who care for people whose days are ended by cancer. Anyone whose family has been touched by that disease—and most of our families have been—will know about the skills and care needed, particularly in the final weeks.
	The vast majority of people, however, die from other causes, and that is what I want to focus on tonight. The British Heart Foundation says that about 26 per cent. of people die of cancer-related illness, 19 per cent. of coronary heart disease, 14 per cent. of respiratory disease and 11 per cent. of cerebrovascular disease. There are also many people who die simply because they are very elderly and frail, and their bodies, for one reason and another, are shutting down. I shall talk about those people in a minute.
	I want to put on record the views of the Parkinson's Disease Society, which says that
	"although the Parkinson's Disease Society remains concerned about access to and the quality of end-of-life care for people with Parkinson's, it should be noted that Parkinson's disease is not in itself, a terminal condition".
	I can confirm that, because my late mother had Parkinson's disease in the last seven or eight years of her life. The society goes on to say that death for Parkinson's sufferers
	"often occurs as a result of secondary complications such as pneumonia, stroke, urinary tract infection, pressure sores and septicaemia."
	That would almost certainly apply to a wide range of people who succumb in later life to other degenerative conditions, too. Many such people simply fail, and the body closes down.
	The figures provided by Lynn J et al. reveal that in an average year the average general practitioner in England and Wales can expect to deal with five to seven patients who die from organ failure, five patients who die of cancer, between one and two sudden deaths, and six to seven people who die purely of frailty or dementia.
	The vast majority of people do not, therefore, "tick the box"—for want of a better expression—for what is often euphemistically called palliative care, but is not always clearly defined until a decision has to be made, in someone's final days and weeks, about whether they qualify for what many of us would understand to be palliative care.
	Dying is not a precise science, and I have every sympathy for the professionals, especially doctors, because it is not always easy to predict how long a death will take once it becomes evident that somebody is dying. With some conditions, such as cancer and other diseases, we have, from data and experience, life expectancy tables. When people reach the end for other reasons, however, it can be quite evident that the person is dying, but, depending on the circumstances of the individual, it can take a matter of days, or a week or two, or even four to six weeks. It is difficult for clinicians to give that sort of information, but once a patient or a patient's relatives have been told that the patient is dying, it is extremely important that they have the support that we would expect, regardless of the diagnosis or the condition.
	I urge the Government to address that challenge when they bring forward their proposals. There is a need in many cases, as we know from such diseases as cancer, for pain control. There is also a need to consider the patient's mental stability. I do not think we always appreciate the sheer stress that patients undergo when aware, if not that they are dying, at least that significant changes are taking place in their state of health and their body, and that in itself can create great anxiety in the final days and weeks.
	There is a need for support for the immediate relatives and carers—if, indeed, they are there. We must not always assume that there are immediate relatives and carers. Many very elderly people—and people, we know, are living much longer—actually have nobody there when they reach that point in their life. How important it is that the statutory services providing care take on an additional responsibility for the well-being of those patients.
	There are also the physical needs of the dying. That may sound rather self-apparent, but those needs are intensive. Patients need intensive care and attention. The House has been involved in the administration of food and water, which is a very important issue. I do not intend to reopen it as my views are on the record, but we should seek nothing less than the very best standard of continuing to provide fluid and nutrition, and that will often mean moving from mashed food to sieved food to pureed food to liquid food. I am not necessarily talking about artificial administration of food and liquid, but that administration is time-consuming, requiring proper assessment of the patient. Where it is done well, as I have seen it done, it is commendable. What is worrying is that that does not happen often enough. It is what is needed.
	As far as comfort is concerned, someone confined to bed needs to be turned regularly to avoid pressure sores, and that requires two people to turn the patient. Pressure sores are a serious matter: I always think the name belies what they are. I have seen pressure sores in elderly people at the base of the spine when I could actually see the spinal bone through the large, egg-shaped hole; that is a pressure sore. The seriousness of those sores and the need for careful hygienic handling, daily packing of the wound and careful and sensitive treatment require a lot of intensive nursing care. There are obviously also issues of hygiene and incontinence. People who are dying actually need 24-hour care, wherever they are dying.
	I have carefully studied the Government's end-of-life programme and read of the adoption of the gold standard framework, which I totally support and which I know has begun to be rolled out to all dying patients, with money to help that happen. I commend the Government for that, but I hope that when the Minister brings forward his White Paper we shall see that being adopted as a universal standard throughout the country. In many debates to do with health care we talk about lotteries. In fact, no lottery is more serious than that for the patient who is dying.
	I also want to mention what happens in hospitals, as I was very surprised at the end of last year to receive reports about the fate of several elderly patients. Their relatives were told that those elderly people were dying but, at the same time, that they had be moved out of hospital and into nursing homes. That represents a new type of bed blocking, and I was shocked by the case of a constituent whose mother had cancer. He and the hospital staff had quite a robust discussion about the relative costs of hospital and nursing home beds.
	We all know that there is a shortage of nursing home beds. When a person is told that his mother is dying—and when that person cannot nurse her at home—it is wrong to expect him to chase a suitable place in a nursing home. My constituent told me in a letter that he and his sisters were given a three-week ultimatum, and reached the point where they were praying for their mother to die before they had to move her out of hospital.
	The lady in question did die in hospital, and there was no complaint at all about the care that she received there, but it is wrong and callous to expect relatives to begin searching for a nursing home at such a sensitive time. Moreover, I must tell the Minister that I have had to deal with more than one such case.
	I turn now to the definition of palliative care. That term is used in respect of a minority of patients, and I hope that the matter will be addressed in the forthcoming White Paper. In a written question on 15 December, I asked about the guidance that is given to primary care services in respect of people dying at home. However, the response that I got had to do only with the improved care being given to people with cancer.
	The White Paper is likely to say that the Government want to work with the private and charitable sectors in this matter. That is natural, but I draw to the Minister's attention what various organisations have had to say on this topic. The Marie Curie Fellowship Association told me in a letter that it had urged the Government
	"to allocate further resources to roll out the Delivering Choice Programme in the imminent White Paper . . . There must be some result along these lines in order to move beyond empty words and commit to real progress in extending choice in end of life care".
	The British Heart Foundation said that it would
	"continue to maintain pressure on the Government and urge them to make their decisions on palliative care resources based on patient need not patient diagnosis."
	Finally, the NHS Confederation produced in November a very good report on improving end-of-life care. It recommended:
	"All people at the end of life need to have choice over the place in which they die. The hospice system may need to be extended so that high-quality specialist end-of-life care is available to more people, with all diagnoses."
	That is what I am seeking from the Minister tonight.

Liam Byrne: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Angela Browning) on securing this Adjournment debate. I served with her on the Standing Committee considering the Mental Capacity Bill, and I well remember her contributions to our debates. What she said meant a lot to me, as I had to care for my own mother when she was dying from cancer. She was lucky enough to die at home, surrounded by her family.
	The goal at the heart of this debate is securing the best possible care for the dying, and that is of interest to many hon. Members. We need to bring the level of care for everybody up to the standards of the best, because—and it is important to recognise it—in some parts of the country care for the dying is excellent. That is in no small part due to the work of NHS staff and their counterparts in the voluntary sector.
	I wish to sketch out some of the progress that we have made in the past few years. I am grateful that the hon. Lady sought to widen the debate beyond those who are terminally ill with cancer to all people at the end of their lives. That said, I want to start with the NHS cancer plan, which was published in 2000. It made important commitments to improve the care of those with terminal cancer. It highlighted the need to ensure that people with cancer get the right professional support, as well as treatments. It included a commitment to develop a supportive and palliative care strategy and to invest an additional £50 million in specialist palliative care for adults. This investment was made to help tackle inequalities in access to services that had been such a problem previously.
	The plan led to important progress elsewhere. A good example is the £6 million that was invested over three years in training district nurses in the principles and practice of palliative care. That extremely successful programme has enabled nurses to gain more confidence in assessing what patients and families need if they wish to die at home. More than 10,000 nurses and other health care professionals have now participated in that programme.
	The third area of progress I wish to draw to the attention of the House is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance on supportive and palliative care services—an important document that sets out services that help patients and carers. I was glad to hear the hon. Lady highlight the needs of carers, because they are often overlooked, even in debates in this House. Although oriented towards cancer, many of the principles of the guidance apply equally to conditions other than cancer.
	The fourth area of progress is the NHS programme "Building on the Best", which was published in 2003. It set out a plan of action to enable people, regardless of their disease, to make choices about how they die, and to have access to high quality end-of-life care.
	Fifthly, we are about to introduce a White Paper on health and social care. We consulted the public and a number of stakeholders. I wish to record my thanks to organisations such as Marie Curie Cancer Care and the British Heart Foundation for the work that they did to help us get the White Paper right. The ambitions of the public were clear and confirmed our direction of travel, which is to strengthen services to increase help to people who choose to die at home. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will present that White Paper to the House in the not too distant future.
	I wish to add my analysis to that of the hon. Lady, before I highlight the progress that we can make. As she said, the majority of people state that they would prefer to die at home, given the right circumstances and support—an important caveat. However, only about 20 per cent. manage to achieve that, with 4 per cent. dying in hospices, 20 per cent. dying in care homes, and some 56 per cent. still dying in hospital. That must change.
	Palliative care provision is heavily weighted towards cancer patients. Some 95 per cent. of all referrals to specialist palliative care services are for people with cancer, but cancer accounts for "only" 25 per cent. of deaths each year. Addressing that inequality in care is an important challenge.

Angela Browning: From where will the Minister draw his definition of palliative care? The World Health Organisation defines palliative care as
	"the total care of patients whose disease is not responsive to curative treatment".
	However, a diagnostic, disease-based definition means that one needs to identify the disease first. As the Parkinson Society points out, Parkinson's is a disease, but it is not a terminal illness. The issue is like dancing on the head of a pin and I hope that the Minister will look closely at it.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. If I may, I will reflect on that and drop her a line. It is an important point for reflection, particularly as we finalise the White Paper over the weeks to come.
	There are a number of other challenges that I want to mention. Many people at the end of their life will be suffering from a number of different conditions, not just one, and that can often create complications. We must not underestimate the role of carers because their availability, their attitude and the support that they provide are extremely important in determining whether people are able to die at home. During the listening event that we conducted while we were preparing the White Paper, we paid very close attention to the needs of carers, and we will reflect on what they said to us in the White Paper.
	The last point that I would add to the hon. Lady's analysis is that we must not forget the need for good bereavement services. I know myself that they can make all the difference at what is often an extremely difficult time.

Angela Browning: The Minister is very generous in giving way. As I am sure he is aware, sometimes when an elderly relative dies, people make rather euphemistic comments such as, "Oh well, they've had a good innings," when actually the hurt and the bereavement is still very great.

Liam Byrne: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The Minister for Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), is soon to present a report from the social exclusion unit about excluded older people. It makes the point that the descent of a number of older people into social exclusion is triggered by the death of a close relative, not just because of the depression that is induced but because of isolation.
	What are we going to do about that? The mandatory NHS national service frameworks are extremely important. The older people's NSF sets out very clear standards and service models throughout health and social care; it is vital that those services work together in providing care for those who are dying. The long-term conditions NSF sets out in some detail the quality requirements for NHS treatment of those with neurological conditions.
	The reason those frameworks are so good is that they have benefited from the input of a number of organisations involved in providing palliative care: not only Sue Ryder Care, Macmillan Cancer Relief and Marie Curie Cancer Care but the National Council for Palliative Care, to name but a few. The end-of-life care programme is extremely important if we are to realise those ambitions. It is led by the national clinical directors for cancer and for older people and neurological conditions. It is backed by about £12 million of investment, and it is being taken forward by strategic health authorities and primary care trusts. It has a simple objective: to skill up staff for whom end of life is only part of their work load. It provides a number of tools: the gold standards framework, the preferred place of care and the Liverpool care pathway.
	The hon. Lady will be interested to know that about 23 per cent. of all GP practices have implemented one or more of those tools; 43 per cent. of hospital trusts have now implemented the Liverpool care pathway in one or more wards; and about 36 per cent. of hospices have implemented one of the tools. We need to make slightly faster progress in care in nursing homes, and there is a programme of work under way to help to achieve that.
	There is also more that we can do to strengthen bereavement support. The Government have published advice to support the development of improved local bereavement services. It is called "When a patient dies" and covers the support needed before death both by those who are dying and by their families and carers. As the hon. Lady says, there is often a need for a lot of emotional support for the person who is dying, as well as for their family, in order to make the appropriate preparations.
	Together with that, the Department has helped to establish the National Association of Bereavement Services for NHS professionals involved in providing bereavement support services. The Department is working very closely with the association to deliver a series of regional workshops for NHS staff based on the guidance.
	We shall also make further proposals to support carers in our White Paper on social care and health. As the hon. Lady knows, we have made substantial investment in providing more support for carers over the past few years. Recently, we confirmed that about £185 million would be made available, usually through local authorities, to support the work of carers. From visiting hospices and from people who work with the NHS, I know that respite care in local organisations is often what makes one of the most difficult points in people's lives a little more bearable.
	As the hon. Lady knows, we made a manifesto commitment in May to double funding on palliative care, which will be extremely important in helping more people die at home. She is right to say that as part of our policy work we need to create a clear and widely encompassing definition of palliative care services. That will be important in helping to ensure that the implementation of our manifesto commitment is absolutely right.
	The hon. Lady teased out an important point: the commitment is applicable to all people at the end of their lives, whatever their age or condition. As she said, the commitment must be diagnosis-neutral, and implementing it regardless of age or condition is extremely important. I think all Members will agree that it reaffirms the Government's dedication to improving the care available at the end of life.
	We shall have much more to say about the implementation of the manifesto commitment in the White Paper that the Secretary of State will produce. I thank not only the people who were involved in the consultation, but also some of the carers organisations, such as Carers UK, as well as organisations such as Marie Curie and the British Heart Foundation, which were involved in some of the policy taskforces. The hon. Lady probably knows that Marie Curie's work with us, and that of other organisations, has been extremely important in helping us to understand how some of their learning, such as that generated by Marie Curie's pilots in Lincolnshire, can be more widely disseminated in the rest of the country. When we add their experience to innovations such as the gold standards framework and the Liverpool care pathway, we shall achieve a good understanding of how services should be developed. The key now is action: how to ensure that those services are available to everybody, not just those who are lucky enough to live in the right areas. That will very much be the objective of the White Paper.
	In conclusion, I reiterate my thanks to the hon. Lady for giving us the chance to discuss this issue. Enabling people at the end of life to live and die in the place of their choice—in other words, the chance to experience a good death—should be the great aim not only for the NHS but for all who work in social care. The issue will be clearly set out in the forthcoming White Paper, as part of the Government's agenda. We are committed to ensuring equality of access to high-quality palliative and end-of-life care, regardless of age or condition.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Seven o'clock.